Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of William Oscar James Robinson, esquire, Member for Walthamstow, East, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — GAMING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 10

GAMING BOARD FOR GREAT BRITAIN

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 7, line 18, at end insert:
the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain and, in particular, to keep under review".

11.5 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to the Lords Amendment is not selected, but hon. and right hon. Members who have signed it may speak to the first Lords Amendment.

Mr. Morgan: The object of the Lords Amendment is to make it clear that, in addition to the particular responsibilities assigned to the Gaming Board by the Bill in respect of licensed and registered clubs and other functions, such as certification of gaming operatives and machine retailers, the Board would be expected to keep under review the extent and character of gaming of all kinds throughout the country. The Amendment is of particular value in its impact on Clause 50, which is the Clause dealing with the annual reports to be made by the Board to the Secretary of State for presentation to Parliament.
In these reports, the Board is required to account for
the performance of their functions",
and now for the function of reviewing gaming as a whole.
The Board will be expected to include in its reports a general conspectus of gaming both in relation to licensed and registered clubs and more widely so as to touch, for instance, on the use of gaming and amusement machines, gaming at charity fetes and non-commercial entertainments and on amusements provided at fairs and pleasure grounds under the 1963 Act. A comprehensive account of this kind would be of considerable value to


Parliament and all concerned with the social aspects of this subject. It will provide a setting against which the working of the individual controls can then be judged.

Mr. Antony Buck: The Lords Amendment emanates from an Amendment moved in another place by the noble Lord the Bishop of Chester, and I hope that I shall not be considered unduly presumptuous if, at this stage, I say that on both sides of the House we have very much welcomed the help which we have received from the Churches in the whole consideration of gaming. The Churches Council on Gambling has produced some of the most useful material which we on this side of the House have received and I think that the Government themselves have been in close touch with that Council. This is another useful example of the work which it has been doing.
The Amendment makes it entirely clear that the Board is to be charged with the duty of effecting an overall review of the whole national gaming picture and, under Clause 50, it will be charged with providing an annual and compendious review of the whole situation.
Because of the Amendment, this report will be somewhat akin to the annual report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary relating to police affairs and the overall state of crime. But there are differences. One of the differences is that the overall review made by the Inspector of Constabulary is made by a person who has spent years in combating crime and who is steeped in police affairs. Because of the appointment of Sir Stanley Raymond, it cannot be said that this will be the case in 18 months' time.
We have grave misgivings that someone whose distinguished service has been entirely in transport has been given the job of being charged with the overall review of gaming. It is difficult to acquire knowledge about this subject. Sir Stanley will have to deal with some of the most difficult people in the world, because people will try to cash in on gaining in this country and he will have a very difficult task, especially as a result of the Amendment, which charges him with the overall review of gaming. We have misgivings because he is totally

without experience of gaming, and a lifetime's distinguishd service in transport is not, in our view, an appropriate apprenticeship for the man who is to be the first chairman of the Gaming Board. However, it is entirely correct that the Board should be charged with the overall review of gaming.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I was particularly sorry that you, Mr. Speaker, were not able to select the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and myself, to disagree—

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for one second, he will understand why the Amendment was not selected.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was not intending any criticism of the decision in the slightest. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, know me well enough to realise that.

Mr. Speaker: May I help the hon. Gentleman. He seeks in his Amendment to disagree. He is entitled to seek to disagree on the Motion before the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate that entirely. I disagree and, what is more, many of my hon. Friends disagree. I venture to think that practically all of my hon. Friends will disagree when they have heard what I wish to say.
I know perhaps better than most what was the purpose and intention of a Gaming Board, because the original suggestion came from me. I investigated very carefully all the matters which led to the setting up of the Board, its ideas and the concept behind it before putting forward the various schemes which later were elaborated and substantially adopted by the Government.
The purpose of the Board is to carry out the administration of gaming. The purpose of Parliament is to decide what we want in Britain with regard to the extent and character of gaming. This is a Parliamentary function. It is not a function to be delegated to the Gaming Board. The idea of the bishop who dealt with this matter in another place was completely misconceived purely through lack of political knowledge of the situation.
The matter was perfectly well set out before in Clause 10. The Board was enjoined to carry out its proper function, namely,
to keep under review the extent, character and location of gaming facilities …
The Amendment in another place imposes a duty on the chairman and the members of the Board to keep under review
the extent and character of gaming".
In other words, they are to report on matters of morality and practice and to consider the character and quantum of gaming. If they are to do that, no doubt they are to give their own personal opinions.
11.15 a.m.
It is not sufficient for my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) to say that we have apprehensions about this matter. Apprehensions are nothing. The gentleman whom the Home Secretary has seen fit to appoint to carry out this task has acknowledged that his concept of a "flutter" is the movement of a female skirt. He does not know what a "flutter" is. From beginning to end, when this matter was debated, we made it only too plain to the Home Secretary that the man appointed to execute the necessary gaming facilities should have breadth of vision and a considerable general knowledge of the world and, in particular, of gambling.
If ever there was a clear case in which a political appointee should not have been a party political appointee, this is it. Plenty of hon. Members opposite, even if this had been a political appointee, might have asked the former Member for Dudley, Lord Wigg, for his opinion about whom might be suitable for the appointment. I am sure that he could have assisted in ensuring that it was someone who had at least the mere elements of a knowledge of gaming.

Mr. Buck: Or the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Rees-Davies: No doubt he could have assisted them in this matter, too.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosports and Fareham): That would have meant a by-election.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes—a by-election which I am sure would have been very

happy for hon. Members opposite in one sense, but perhaps not in another.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I accept the implied rebuke. Mr. Speaker.
The country is full of eminent men in commerce, agriculture and other walks of life who have a considerable knowledge of the broad ambit of betting and gaming. Unfortunately, one cannot just be tutored in these matters. A knowledge of gaming is something which is built up from experience over the years. I am sure that those who have recently been associated in the efforts of the Churches recognise how difficult it is to understand the follies, mistakes and evils of this subject.
It is a tragic error that the job of chairman of a Board which is to be given for the first time in Parliamentary history completely autocratic powers should have been landed in the lap of an ex-railway chief who does not have the support of all parties in the House or of the country, and that he. having frankly admitted, as one would expect him properly to do, that he had absolutely no knowledge of this subject and must, I think, by implication have said, "Why have you chosen me? I am quite unsuited for this purpose", should be persuaded by the Home Secretary, no doubt against his will, to undertake this task. I say "no doubt against his will" because I assume in his favour that an honourable man would point out the very limited assistance which he could be in this matter.
I should like to divide the House on this Amendment, albeit on a Friday morning, although I hasten to add that many others would not wish to do so, and I do not propose to do so. I cannot see what value there will be next year in having a report from a Gaming Board headed by this chairman with a total absence of understanding or knowledge of gaming, but we will do our best to try to make him understand what it is about.
I greatly hope that we shall have a first-class deputy chairman appointed. This is essential, because this Board will obviously be run by the deputy chairman. Therefore, let us see a person with no political bias appointed. I do not ask for a Tory, Liberal or Labour appointee. I merely ask that it should be a man not


only of wisdom, but a man of the world with a thorough going knowledge of racing, betting and gambling facilities.
Let it not be said that there are not many such people about. There are plenty to be found in this country who have had knowledge of this matter throughout their lives. Indeed, there are such men who have served on one side or the other in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come to the Amendment which seeks to add "gaming" to "gaming facilities".

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The whole essence of the argument is: what is the purpose of having a Board to tell us about the character and the extent of gaming unless we can respect the opinions and views of the precise people on the Board when they express them next year? If we could be certain that we had a first-class Board, the best that could be expected, with specialist understanding, its recommendations would be worth receiving. In my judgment, the Government, having taken these powers at the express request of the Opposition, have clearly let us down by not appointing the sort of person in whom we could put our trust to carry this Board into effect and to carry out the first truly autocratic Measure in Parliamentary history.
I do not suggest that the present chairman or the Board will not do their best. But it is very difficult in this sphere to decide, for example, who shall or shall not receive a licence, who is the right type of operator, without having a considerable understanding of and sympathy for the industry. How can a man have sympathy for the industry when he has never in his life had a flutter?

Dr. Bennett: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), although I would moderate my support of the latter to this extent. I see no objection to the Amendment—in fact, I find it quite praiseworthy—in that it adds the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain to the total responsibilities of the Gaming Board, which is an utterly desirable development. This is in line with what I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee were pressing for.
Throughout the long Committee stage upstairs we on this side took a very clear line devoted to make the responsibilities of the Gaming Board greater and the perhaps capricious interventions of local justices less in this serious matter. The addition of such an Amendment underlines the stresses and responsibilities, great as they should be, on the Gaming Board not only for the limited objective of supervising gaming facilities, but, in addition, to watch the extent and character of gaming in Great Britain as a whole. In principle, this is an absolutely unexceptional Amendment.
We have always sought—and the Government have been good enough to accede repeatedly to our requests—that an almost autocratic, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said, an almost absolute, powerful Board, with certain knowledge of the whole affair of gaming, should take charge of the subject. Therefore, I find it absolutely bewildering to be faced with the first and most important appointment of a man who knows nothing about the subject. I go further. I believe that he knows less about this subject than most Ministers know about theirs—and this is very hard to beat. I do not know the man and I have nothing against him.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said, he has given eminent public service in the transport industry, but this is so irrelevant that I dread now what we shall find next in appointments to this Board. It makes me regret not only this Amendment, but the fact that we successfully obtained the establishment of a most important Board with such extremely arbitrary powers when those powers are put in the hands of people, who, in my humble opinion, are totally unfit to wield them. This smacks grossly of "jobs for the boys", as we used to know them in this House during the period 1946–51. It makes me feel that the Emperor Caligula was statesmanlike in the light of what we have seen recently concerning appointments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are all aware of Caligula and his horse, but we are discussing whether the Board shall extend its powers to gaming as well as gaming facilities.

Dr. Bennett: I acknowledge my fault in bringing horses into this matter. It is


nothing to do with horses and I withdraw that point.
However, I resent completely this snub that the Administration has administered to Parliament after all the weeks of voluntary effort spent by Members of the House in Committee hammering out a good and workable scheme, now to be brought to nought by the appointment of people utterly incapable of running the great responsibilities put upon them. Therefore I feel sick at heart about what has come of the Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Mr. Elystan Morgan rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to reply he must obtain the leave of the House.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) have bowled rather fast in this matter, but none of their bowling was on the wicket. The issue before the House is whether the Gaming Board should have its remit extended concerning the scope of its study and report. I submit that not one word uttered by any one of the hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned has been relevant or material to that issue. I appreciate that they have indulged in what they probably regard as a pleasant Friday morning knock-about on this subject, but I regret their remarks concerning Sir Stanley Raymond.
I do not subscribe to the theory that to fill this post properly a person must have knowledge of gaming as an operator or as a participant. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has spent a great deal of his life addressing High Court judges in technical cases. Take, for example, a medical case where there are fine and involved points of medical evidence. Knowing full well that the person to whom he was addressing his remarks was not medically qualified, the hon. Gentleman knows that he will come to a first class and firm decision in that connection.

11.30 a.m.

Dr. Bennett: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, while a barrister has to learn his case, one would not

appoint a man, however good a counsel, as superintendent of a great hospital, or as a consultant surgeon? That is the difference.

Mr. Morgan: I do not accept that parallel. I was not talking, so much of counsel, as of the judge, the court to whom the arguments are addressed.
I am sure the House agrees that the qualities needed in a person holding the post of chairman of the Gaming Board are that he should be able to put himself in a judicial capacity, that he should be a person of high ability with wide and varied administrative experience, and that he should be able to come to intelligent and firm decisions.
I deny that this is a political appointment. I submit that the qualities which I have mentioned appear very clearly in the character and record of Sir Stanley Raymond. The remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are unworthy of them, and I feel that they are seeking to introduce an element of partisan politics which, happily, has been absent from any of the stages of the Bill so far.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that we have explored that controversy, I think that the Minister must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps I might add, because it might be of advantage for the House to know this, that there will be a secretariat to advise the Board on all detailed technical matters.
The Amendment does not extend the Board's powers in any way. It merely widens its remit and will enable the Report which is envisaged in Clause 50 to embrace all gaming activities in this country. I am sure that the House as a whole welcomes that principle, and that it will accept the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR GAMING

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 11, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert:
not more than two banking days later".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (2) allows cheques to be accepted to obtain cash or tokens to be used in gaming, provided they are not post-dated. Subsection (3) provides that such a cheque must be presented for payment or collection on the day it is paid, or not more than four banking days later, or such longer period as may be prescribed. The Amendment requires the cheque to be presented not more than two banking days after it is paid, and it also removes the power to prescribe a longer period.
I appreciate that Amendment will bring the Bill back to its original state. It was amended in Committee, but if the Amendment now before the House is accepted the four-day period will be altered to the original position, and the power to vary the period by Regulation will be omitted.
The reason why we are insisting on the prompt presentation of cheques is to prevent them being held by a club in agreement with the player and so constitute a form of concealed credit, which the Clause otherwise prohibits absolutely. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate that it was strongly argued in the other place that four days was too long a period because it would be likely to allow the abuse which we wish to prevent. One banking day would be sufficient, but this would be unreasonable and would bear more heavily on clubs than is necessary. It was therefore decided to allow two days' grace, and to remove the power to allow a longer period. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I regard the Amendment as somewhat extraordinary. I think it should be pointed out to the Home Office that this is a fantastic change-round on its part. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill started with a provision that a cheque must be presented for payment within two days. That led to a substantial volume of criticism by the interests concerned who said that, for various reasons, two days did not seem a wholly adequate period, that errors could occur, and it was suggested that four days was a reasonable time in which to allow them to present cheques for payment.
What surprises me most is that the Amendment has been brought in despite an extremely short debate on the Amendment

which I moved in Committee to delete two days and insert four days. My speech in Committee covered about half a column of HANSARD, and must, therefore, have taken between 30 seconds and a minute to make. It was replied to by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in these words:
I should like to ask for the tolerance and goodwill of the Committee in making my maiden speech, and I should like it to be in this form: I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March 1968, c. 273.]
Having accepted the argument without any debate, we now find—although I have sympathy with the argument about blackmail I find it unconvincing—that the House is being invited to accept an even more stringent proposal than the original one, and without any adequate explanation for the change.
I do not propose to force the matter to a Division, but I regard it as unfortunate that, after matters of importance were put to the Home Office by the trade interests concerned and were accepted as being important and sensible, we now find that the Government have changed their minds without, apparently, any adequate reason for doing so.

Dr. Bennett: I am not prepared to comment on the vacillation shown by this volte-face, but I might perhaps draw the attention of the House to the fact that new circumstances have arisen which I do not think have been taken into account.
The Amendment says that a cheque shall be presented
not more than two banking days later …
With our present postal service, which was debated so interestingly last night just before 11 o'clock, it will take much longer than two days for letters to get to the bank. Does "cause the cheque to be delivered to a bank" mean that it should be received by the bank, or will proof of posting be adequate, and if it gets lost in the mail will the credit which accrues therefrom be regarded as an act of God, or an act of the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to reply.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) knows as well as I do exactly at what


point in time a cheque is presented, and that there can be no two ways about it. The Government need not apologise too much in this connection. They are entitled to change their mind. It has been quoted often in this House that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and the Government are facing in exactly the same direction now as they were when the Bill was first presented.

Mr. Buck: Can the Minister say why it was thought necessary by the Amendment to remove flexibility—the right to make regulations to alter the time limit?

Mr. Morgan: I was coming to that point. On the question of the two days' limit, I am sure that the House agrees that on balance it is better than four days, and that there is a great danger of abuse in that if the limit is increased to four days it could bring about a situation of concealed credit. Only in exceptional circumstances could there be banking days on which banks are not open—situations of international crisis, which happily do not occur very often.
If they did occur I doubt whether it would be possible for the House to pass regulations in the short time allowed in any case. The removal of the provision for flexibility that appeared in the letter of the Bill does not change the situation in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 23

OFFENCES UNDER PART II

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 18, line 4, leave out "next following subsection" and insert
following provisions of this section".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.

Mr. Morgan: These again, are largely drafting Amendments which do not bring about any substantial change in the character of the Bill. The only substantial

Amendment is Amendment No. 9. The others are consequential. As subsection (1) now stands, only a licence holder may be prosecuted for breaches of the law on licensed premises and only a club officer for breaches of the law on registered premises, and they are given the defence that they had no knowledge of the contravention and had exercised all reasonable care against its occurrence. There might therefore be flagrant offences committed by an employee of a club for which neither the offender nor anyone else could be penalised.
The Amendment accordingly extends liability for contraventions beyond the licence holder or officers of the club to whoever may have been concerned in the organisation or management of the gaming in question. It does not touch the mere participants in the gaming, because they are more likely than not to have been the sufferers from the offences which have been committed.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree entirely that it is sensible and right that those who are responsible should be held responsible. I am glad to see that we are avoiding the error which has been fallen into in some other recent Bills, of creating absolute criminal offences. As far as I can see we have managed to avoid that error throughout the Bill. I hope that the Home Office will always give careful thought to these questions and will provide defences to the people concerned and not create absolute offences as was done in some other unfortunate legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 18, line 27, after "liable" insert "(a)".

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 14.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendments deal with penalties to be imposed on licence holders or officers of clubs and institutes for infringements of the conditions of licensing or registration provided under Part II.
At present subsection (3) provides for summary proceedings only, with a fine of up to £400 and imprisonment up to three months, or both. The Amendments, which were foreshadowed on Report, remove all liability to imprisonment on summary conviction and provide an alternative of proceedings on indictment and allow for an unlimited fine and to imprisonment up to two years, or both. I sincerely trust that this meets with the wishes of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34

OTHER USES OF MACHINES FOR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES

Lords Amendment No. 23: In page 26, line 23, leave out from "The" to "one" in line 24 and insert:
charge for play for playing a game once by means of the machine shall be one or more coins or tokens inserted in the machine of an amount or value not exceeding (or, if more than one, not in the aggregate exceeding)".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is little more than drafting. First, it applies the new expression "charge for play" in place of the expression "amount inserted in the machine". Secondly, it takes account of the fact that tokens may be used in these machines for the purpose of playing.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 26, line 31, at end insert:
which is, or two or more tokens which in the aggregate are,

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (3) allows amusement machines to offer a number of alternatives which are mutually exclusive. The alternative set out in paragraph (a) is that of a money prize not exceeding 2s. or a single token exchangeable only for such a money prize. We agree that it may be convenient for a machine which offers different money prizes to deliver one, two or three

tokens, depending on the degree of success in the game, instead of having always to deliver only one token.
The Amendment achieves this without affecting the maximum prize of 2s., which can now be delivered by, say, four 6d. tokens instead of one 2s. token, as hitherto.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38

OFFENCES UNDER PART III

Lords Amendment No. 29: In page 30, line 36, at end insert:
(3A) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, but subject to subsection (10) of this section, where any such provisions as are mentioned in the last preceding subsection are contravened in relation to a machine on any premises, any person who allowed the machine to be on the premises shall be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment applies to offences committed in connection with machines on licensed or registered premises. The principle is the same as that which applied to the Amendments in Clauses 23 and 24 in respect of offences against a general gaming loss on those premises. It does this for exactly the same reasons. It extends the liability from the licence holder or club officers to whoever else may have allowed the offending machine to be on the premises.

Mr. Carlisle: I wish only to make the same comment, and to ask whether the Home Secretary can confirm—although he has not actually said it—that these are not absolute offences, but ones to which there is a defence.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 39

PENALTIES UNDER PART III

Lords Amendment No. 32: In page 32, line 14, leave out from "under" to "section" in line 15.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 33, in page 32, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Morgan: These Amendments deal with the penalties for infringements of the law relating to the supply and use of gaming machines and amusement machines under Part III. They provide for the alternative of summary proceedings with the liability of a fine up to £400 but no imprisonment or of proceedings on indictment with liability to an unlimited fine, imprisonment of up to two years or both.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42

RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING TO GAMING

Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 35, line 30, leave out "specified in the advertisement".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is largely a drafting Amendment, but I apprehend that hon. Members opposite might want to know something about it. Clause 42(1)(a) prohibits any advertisement
informing the public that any premises in Great Britain specified in the advertisement are premses on which gaming takes place or is to take place,
The words "specified in the advertisement" add nothing to the sense of this provision. There is therefore a risk that the provision will be construed as requiring that the premises should be specified in some way, as, for example, by giving the postal address. Such a construction would leave the provision open to evasion, or, if an establishment were already a household word, there might be some doubt if these words were to remain in the Clause. Accordingly, the Amendment takes them out.

Mr. Buck: I can accept that the Amendment helps the Government in their avowed purpose of not allowing any form of advertising of these establishments, but that is a purpose with which we are not in sympathy, and therefore we are not in sympathy with the Amendment. It is absurd to set up all this panoply to provide legal and well-supervised establishments and then tell the people that they are not allowed to advertise. This pushes the matter under ground. We are against the purpose of the Amendment and this whole restriction. It suggests a presentiment of failure, because if we succeed and have a relatively small number of well run gaming clubs it is nonsense that people should not have access to information about them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 36, line 30, after "granted" insert:
or from such later date as may be appointed by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Morgan: Clause 42(3)(c) except from the restrictions on advertising applying to commercial gaming clubs newspaper advertisements issued within 14 days of a licence being granted and in a form approved by the licensing authority. The object is to allow the new club some chance of announcing its arrival and so establishing itself in competition with the clubs already in being. The Amendments will allow the newspaper advertisements to be inserted still for 14 days but not necessarily for the 14 days immediately after the grant of a licence.
Instead, the period may run from any other date approved by the licensing authority. The reason is that, very often before making an application for a licence, the proprietors of a club might wish to carry out substantial structural alterations or additions and would wish to do that only after the licence had actually been granted. They would not wish to commit themselves to substantial


capital expenditure on the mere contingency of a licence being granted. This enables the 14-day period to run from a date which has been specified by those granting the licence. I trust, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have no fundamental objection to the Amendment.

Mr. Buck: Does not this illustrate the absurdity of the situation? What the Government are saying is that one can announce the arrival, the birth, of a new club in advertisements but one is never thereafter allowed to advertise the facilities on which one's survival depends. But in so far as this provides a little flexibility, to allow the period of the advertisement to be extended or to take place once the club and not just the licence is in existence, we welcome it. Probably the Government can see how absurd the situation is. This is sheerest nonsense. We condemn the absurdity but welcome the slight additional flexibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

PROVISION FOR INSPECTORS AND RIGHTS OF ENTRY AND RELATED RIGHTS

Lords Amendment No. 37: In page 37, line 34, leave out "and with the consent of".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is intended to meet the criticism of Clause 43 that if the police or gaming inspectors were obstructed when seeking to enter licensed premises or inspect the equipment and accounts there in the absence of the licence holder, no offence could be brought to him. The Amendment deletes the words "and with the consent of" and, therefore, widens the scope of liability somewhat.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 38: In page 39, line 23, at end insert:
( ) In the case of any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, any person duly authorised in writing by the fire authority (within the

meaning of the Fire Services Act 1947) in whose area the premises are situated may at any reasonable time enter the premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether appropriate precautions against the danger of fire are being sufficiently observed; and in relation to a person so authorised subsection (3) of this section (with the omission of paragraphs (c) and (d)) shall have effect as if in that sub-section—

(a) any reference to an inspector or constable were a reference to a person so authorised, and
(b) the reference in paragraph (a) to subsection (2) of this section were a reference to the preceding provisions of this subsection."

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment gives officers duly authorised by the fire authority the right to enter a licensed club at any reasonable time to see whether the fire precautions are being observed. The Government have given further consideration to this point, and I can, I think, chivalrously congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite who raised this matter on Report and now find that their advocacy was not in vain.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 39: in page 39, line 25, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment raises from £100 to £200 the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under the Clause of obstructing the police or a Gaming Board inspector. Since these inspections are so important and constitute such an integral part of the Bill's structure, I trust that the House will not find the new maximum excessive.

Mr. Buck: We should like to know why. Is this a recognition by the Government of the rapid rate of inflation since this matter was first raised? The sudden doubling of the fine suggests simply that someone in the Home Office thought that it was a little low. Is there any real reason for this? Are the Government simply changing their mind?

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps, by your leave, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House,


I may be allowed to say that, of the two sums, the sum of £200 seems to be by far the more appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46

FORFEITURE

Lords Amendment No. 40: In page 40, line 7, at beginning insert:
Subject to the next following subsection".
12 noon.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment the House will take Lords Amendment No. 41.

Mr. Morgan: The first Amendment is a paving Amendment for the second. It amends Clause 46 to provide that before a court orders the forfeiture of any article such as a gaming machine which has been produced in evidence before it, it must give an opportunity to anyone claiming to be the owner of that article to be heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Lords Amendment No. 42: In Page 42, line 20, after "order" insert:
(except any order under section 54 of this Act) ".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 51(5) provides for all regulations and orders under the Act to be made subject to the negative Resolution procedure. As it stands, the provision applies to commencement orders made under Clause 54 to bring the Act into operation by stages. I am sure that the House agrees that that procedure is quite inappropriate to such orders, and the Amendment provides that it shall not apply to them.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not very happy about the Amendment. We are bringing into operation a very important Act, which the Under-Secretary will agree will require, among other things, a great deal of very careful initial preparation by the Board before various parts of the Act are brought into force. The House may well wish to probe the Home Secretary to know about the preparations which have been made and about the reports which he has received from the Board, for example, before he chooses to bring various parts of the Act into operation.
I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that an order bringing these parts of the Act into force should be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It would not be a great hardship on the Government. It would not necessarily be used on every occasion, but it would give hon. Members the right to raise on the Floor of the House points about which they wish to be satisfied on the arrangements which have been made.
If I may reiterate what some of my hon. Friends said on the first Lords Amendment, our concern is heightened by our considerable concern at the person who has been appointed Chairman of the Board. It seems even more likely that one might wish to raise questions on the bringing into force of parts of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Lords Amendment No. 44: In page 45, line 18, at end insert:
( ) Sections 10, 43(1), 48, 51 and 52 of this Act and this section and Schedule 1 to this Act shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall take Lords Amendment No. 45.

Mr. Morgan: Amendment 45 is consequential on Amendment 44. It brings the provisions establishing the Gaming Board.


with powers for the appointment of the staff and their inspectorate and their payment, into effect immediately on the passage of the Act instead of leaving them to be made operative by a commencement order. There would be a saving of several weeks possible delay if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Buck: It is sensible that we should bring the Gaming Board into existence as soon as the Bill becomes an Act, but I hoped that the Under-Secretary would take the opportunity to say a little more about it. We have commented sufficiently on the appointment of the chairman of the Board and have told the Government our misgivings. Some of my hon. Friends expressed them strongly.
One further matter with which we should deal is his pay. Is £7,000 a year enough? What will be the scale of pay of the remainder of the Board's staff? By the Amendment we shall bring the Gaming Board into effect as soon as the Royal Assent is given to the Bill. If the chairman is to receive £7,000, how much will be paid to the deputy chairman and to those who will operate the Board? Those who operate the Board will be subjected to most fantastic pressures and temptations, and I worry whether the amounts which the lower grades will be receiving will be sufficient to insulate them from such pressures. If the chairman is to receive £7,000, shall we get people of the proper calibre lower down the scale? We should have an announce-merit from the Government about their intentions.

Mr. Morgan: May I reply by leave of the House. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) spoke of fantastic pressure on the members of the Board but half-an-hour ago he was advocating the appointment of members of the Board from inside the gaming business. There is a fundamental inconsistency between those two statements.

Mr. Buck: I made no such suggestion. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends made that suggestion. Experience of or some knowledge of the gaming business may well be useful to members of the Board, but I have never suggested appointing someone who is operating in the gaming business.

Mr. Morgan: I accept that correction. I thought that there was solidarity of view between the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett).
I am sure that the House appreciates that the establishment of the Gaming Board is the first and indispensable step without which the remaining provisions of the Bill cannot be operated. It is the heart and kernel of the Bill. To leave the establishment to a commencement order might involve delay of as much as a month, which could not subsequently be made good and which would react on the whole of the transitional arrangements, which will take long enough to complete as it is.
The principal provisions brought into effect at once are those in Clause 10 and Schedule 1, which deal with the establishment of the Board and its headquarters staff, and in Clause 43(1), which deals with the appointment of gaming inspectors. It is also necessary to make effective, at the same time, the following matters: first, the financial provisions in Clause 48, which deals, inter alia, with payment of the Board's expenses out of moneys defrayed by Parliament; secondly, the regulation-making powers in Clause 51, which require the Secretary of State to consult the Board before any regulations are made; and, thirdly, the interpretation provisions in Clause 52, which contain the definition both of the Gaming Board and of its inspectors.

Dr. Bennett: Dr. Bennett rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to prevent the hon. Member from speaking, but it would be helpful if interventions in the debate were made before the Minister gave his reply.

Dr. Bennett: I wish to reply to an accusation levelled at me by the Minister in his last speech—an accusation which I could not have anticipated and which surprised me very much. I did not suggest, as the Minister hinted, that the Gaming Board should be recruited from inside the gaming business. My contention all along has been that people with knowledge of gaming should be available to perform this task, and they are not necessarily confined to those who operate gaming machines. Some hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to debate this whole issue again. The matter has been fully ventilated this morning.

Dr. Bennett: I am defending myself against the Minister's imputations about words which I did not use. It has been established that a Board which we thought would be strong might turn out to be weak in knowledge. We have reason to fear, from an announcement in the Press, which is our first intimation in this matter, that the members of the Board may be weak in pay and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to order. We are discussing an Amendment which decides the date when certain parts of the Bill come into operation.

Dr. Bennett: This is the last chance we have to discover the scale of pay.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be the hon. Gentleman's last chance, but he must address his remarks to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2

GRANT, RENEWAL, CANCELLATION AND TRANSFER OF LICENCES

Lords Amendment No. 47: In page 48, line 26, leave out from "made" to first "the" in line 31 and insert:
(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date appointed under section 54(4) of this Act for the purposes of this paragraph, or
(b) after the end of the period of fifteen months beginning with that date and before.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to that course. Nor, I understand, has the House.

Mr. Morgan: The first Amendment, on which the second is consequential, deals with the timing during the transitional period of applications made to

the Gaming Board for certificates of consent to a licence. The timing must be altered because of the failure of the Bill to become law by the end of July. The opportunity is also taken to impose a delay of 15 months between initial applications for consent from the great mass of clubs already existing and further applications from clubs established or intending to be established after the passage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 50: In page 51, line 15, after "shall" insert:
specify the name of the applicant the name of the club and the location of the relevant premises, shall indicate whether the application is for a bingo club licence or for a licence under this Act other than a bingo club licence, and shall

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if the House discusses, at the same time. Lords Amendments Nos. 69 and 76.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendment requires the notice published by an applicant for a licence to give the name of the applicant, the name of the club, and the address of the premises, and to indicate whether it is a bingo licence or a general licence that is being applied for. This Amendment relates to applications made during the initial period; that is, during the time when the Bill is being brought into force. There is already a similar provision in paragraph 6 which relates to the period when the Bill is fully operative.
The question of a bingo licence does not arise in relation to registered clubs and, therefore, the consequential Amendments are required to Schedules 3 and 4.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 52: In page 55, line 41, leave out "to and from".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss,


at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.

Mr. Morgan: These are largely drafting Amendments and I do riot think that I need say more about them.

Mr. Carlisle: While I do not wish to delay the House, I suggest that there is more than a drafting point involved in these proposals, which raise a matter of major principle, although it may perhaps have been overlooked at an earlier stage. I now have an opportunity to go into the matter and ask some questions.
It seems that by means of this Amendment the Government are saying not only that on the grant of a licence must one prove that a substantial demand exists, but that, on every future annual application, the applicant must be placed in the same position of again satisfying the authority that a substantial demand exists. I am not happy about this.
I understand that we are attempting to put the position of gaming clubs very much in line with that of betting shops. If my recollection of the law is correct, no such provision is required for betting shops. One can oppose the grant of a licence on the ground that there is no demand, but once a licence has been granted, one does not have power to oppose its renewal on a similar ground.
What will arise under this provision? A perfectly respectable company or individual may apply and get a licence, having proved that there is a substantial demand in the area. Having got that licence, he may expend a considerable sum of capital to fit out the club. Then, at the end of the year, although he may have been running the club perfectly correctly, unless he can again prove to the magistrates that a substantial demand exists, he may be in danger of losing his licence. I am enough a believer in my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to think that there are some things in which the market should certainly work, and this seems to be one of them.
If a licence has been granted to a person to carry on a legitimate business, one should not then attempt to decide at a later stage whether a demand exists. The person running the club will know that by whether or not he has been getting

a return on his money employed. Although I concede that the Amendment is drafting to the extent that this matter was not fully investigated at an earlier stage, when it probably should have been, there is an issue of importance and principle here. I understand that the Amendment envisages that on every annual renewal of a licence, the holder must call evidence to support his claim that a demand exists. The burden of proof should be the other way round if objection is taken to the licence being granted.
The Home Office may find itself in a lot of trouble with licensing justices if every renewal must be like a full-scale trial, with evidence having to be called to prove that demand exists—and that merely to retain something which the applicant legitimately obtained the previous year in respect of an establishment which he has been legally conducting for the previous 12 months.

Dr. Bennett: This seems to be an absurdity, although the position may be resolved satisfactorily if the Minister says that the evidence which needs to be produced would be thought sufficient if the club's books showed that the premises had been doing successfully financially. This should be implicit in the fact that the applicant is applying for a renewal of his licence. This seems a totally unnecessary provision. The onus of proof should be the other way round. If objection is taken, the person taking the initiative, and not the applicant, should prove that demand does not exist.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made interesting contributions to the debate, but I suggest that they are completely irrelevant to the matter at issue. Their remarks are made on the assumption that the Amendment brings about some changes in the original Bill. If hon. Members pay particular attention to the beginning of paragraph 21(1) of Schedule 2 they will see that that is not so. It says:
The licensing authority may refuse to renew a licence under this Act on any one or more of the following grounds, in addition to those specified in paragraphs 18 and 20 of this Schedule, …
Paragraph 18(1) says:
The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence under this Act if it is not shown to their satisfaction that, in the area


of the authority, a substantial demand already exists …".
It is true that whilst paragraph 18 speaks only of the grant of a licence—the giving of a licence in the first instance—the wording of paragraph 21 is very clear that the authority might take into account the content of paragraphs 18 and 20.

Mr. Carlisle: I hope that I made it clear that I accept that to a large extent this is a drafting Amendment. The matter should have been raised at an earlier stage, but as far as I could see this was the only way I was likely to be able to make the comments I wished to make and to keep in order, without incurring the wrath of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, we now come to the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 55: In page 56, line 30, leave out "game or games" and insert:
kind of game or particular kinds of games".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It is a drafting Amendment which makes no real difference to the substance of the paragraph.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 56: In page 56, line 32, leave out "next following subparagraph" and insert "following provisions of this paragraph".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments No. 58, 59 and 60.

Mr. Morgan: The only substantial Amendment is No. 58. The first merely paves the way, and the last two are consequential.
The object of Amendment No. 58 is to secure that where an applicant receives a certificate of consent from the Board which is limited to a bingo club licence, not only must the justices when granting

the licence impose a restriction limiting the gaming to bingo, but that restriction must be re-imposed on any subsequent renewal.
In other words, if the holder of a bingo club licence wishes at any time to provide other games, he must apply for an entirely new licence and approach the Board anew for a certificate of consent to it. This is reasonable and necessary, since the Board may well take the view that an applicant is to be trusted to run a bingo club, while it may consider him, through lack of experience or financial resources, or for other reasons, not to be trusted to provide casino gaming. The two sets of considerations are entirely different.
The provision will also prevent a person who has paid the relevant fee of £250 for a bingo club licence from introducing other games without paying the full licensing fee of £1,000 normally chargeable to a casino.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 61: In page 56, line 51, at end insert:
25A. Any restrictions imposed under paragraph 24 or paragraph 25 of this Schedule shall be imposed so as to have effect until the licence ceases to have effect or is next renewed (whichever first occurs), but without prejudice, where the licence is renewed, to any power or duty of the licensing authority under either of those paragraphs to impose the like or any other restrictions on renewing the licence.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65, 71 and 78.

Mr. Morgan: These again are drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 63: In page 60, line 34, leave out from "that" to "false" in line 35 and insert:
any information which, in or in connection with the application on which the certificate was issued, was given to the Board by or on behalf of the applicant for the certificate was".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendment No. 68.

Mr. Morgan: Paragraph 34(2)(b) of the Schedule empowers the Board to revoke a certificate of consent for the grant of a licence if it appears to it that the application on which the certificate was issued contained any false particulars. Paragraph 56(2)(a) makes corresponding provision for the revocation of a certificate of consent issued for the transfer of that licence. But in applying to the Board for a certificate in respect of a grant of a licence an applicant is required only to specify the premises concerned and to state whether the application is for a bingo licence or another licence. Not even this is needed in the cafe of a transfer, since, a transfer being between individuals and not between premises, and the licence being otherwise totally unaffected, both of these matters would be self-evident. Therefore, it is hardly likely that anyone would be tempted to falsify information of such a rudimentary kind. But when the Board receives an application it may be expected to seek a great deal of other information bearing upon the applicant's record, experience, financial backing and so on. It is here that the temptations to falsify will arise, and it is such falsification that the Amendments will now penalise by making them a ground for withdrawal of a certificate, so making the licence void, whenever they may come to light.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendrnents agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 69: In page 69, line 7, at end insert:

"Relinquishment of licence

( ) The holder of a licence under this Act may at any time relinquish the licence by notice to the clerk to the licensing authority; and, where such a notice is given, the licence shall thereupon be treated as cancelled.

( ) Where the holder of a licence under this Act relinquishes the licence under this paragraph, the clerk to the licensing authority shall give notice of that fact to—

(a) the Board;
(b) the appropriate officer of police;

(c) the appropriate local authority;
(d) the appropriate fire authority, if that authority is not the same body as the appropriate local authority; and
(e) the appropriate collector of duty."

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I trust that all I need say is that the Amendment ties up a loose end in the Schedule, which provides elaborate procedures for the cancellation of a licence or refusal to renew it for various infringements of the law, falling off in demand or irregularities of various kinds, but makes no provision for licences to be simply surrendered. That deficiency is now made good.

Mr. Buck: It is rather surprising that despite all the attention we gave the Bill at no stage did we make any provision of this character. Thank goodness it has been detected in another place. It would have been absurd if procedure had not been laid down whereby a person could properly give up a licence. One could raise technical points concerning the expression "appropriate officer", but the attention given to the Amendment in another place makes it clear that it is a satisfactory way of dealing with requirements for the relinquishment of a licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' CLUBS UNDER PART II IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords Amendment No. 72: In page 72, line 39, after "under" insert "Part II of".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 73, 79, 80 and 81.

Mr. Morgan: The Amendments provide for the relinquishment of certificates of registration of members' clubs and institutes in exactly the same way as the Amendment to Schedule 2 provides for


the relinquishment of licences by commercial clubs.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 10

PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY LICENSING AUTHORITIES AND SHERIFF CLERKS

Lords Amendment No. 82: In page 96, line 43, leave out from second "clerk" to "as" in line 2 on page 97 and insert:
on being requested by the Board to do so, shall compile from such information as is for the time being in his possession, and shall furnish the Board with, such statistics".

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment.
The object of this Amendment is to go as far as we reasonably can to meet the wishes of the Churches, with which we greatly sympathise, that the sources of information on gaming made available to the Board, and through the Board's report, to Parliament, should be enlarged to the maximum possible extent. I am sure that this is an aspiration which commends itself to the whole House.
At present the justices are required to provide the Board, on request only, with such statistical information with respect to the performance of the functions as the Board may require. This is a very narrow provision. The Amendment obliges them to compile, from such information as is for the time being in their possession, such statistics as the Board may require. In other words it makes producible to the Board all data on gaming which comes to the knowledge of the justices, incidental to their licensing and registration duties.
This is very different from requiring them to account only for the actual discharge of their duties. At the same time, the Amendment falls short of requiring the licensing authorities actively to seek out information on the Board's behalf, which is not a proper obligation to put upon a judicial body, especially one which will be as busy as this.
I can summarise this by saying that this requires justices to hand to the Board information that they already

have in their possession, but does make them agents or inquisitors for and on behalf of the Board. The present provisions only deal with information about the exercise of the functions of the Justices, purely mechanical information which is only a fraction of the information that could be transferred if this Amendment is allowed.

Mr. Buck: I accept what the Under-Secretary has said about it not being desirable for the licensing authorities to be charged with a duty to seek out information for the Board. This would be quite wrong, but does this not go too far? They have to provide, to compile statistics. I know from experience in another sphere how busy the clerks to the Licensing Justices are, and this is placing an additional burden upon them.
Is it right to require them to compile "from such information" statistics and other matters? They are not a seeking out body and that is recognised. I am not convinced that they should be a statistical compilation body. I dare say that common-sense will prevail here, and no undue demands will be made, but I am not entirely happy about it, and believe that a totally unnecessary burden is being placed upon the people serving the licensing justices.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MEDICINES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 9, leave out from "function" to end of line 11 and insert:
for purposes connected with medicinal products or related matters, or
(c) terminate any function conferred on the Commission by or under this Act, or
(d) vary any such function, so however as not to confer on the Commission any new function which could not be conferred on them in accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection".

12.35 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That this


House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In Committee, the power in Clause 5(4)(b) to confer additional functions on the Medicines Commission was criticised by hon. Members opposite, as being far too wide. The point was also made on Report, and I said then that the power must be exercised within the ambit of the Bill. I thought then it would be better to leave the wording as it was rather than to accept the very narrow wording offered as an alternative.
The matter came up again in another place and on further consideration we decided that an Amendment should be made to make it perfectly clear that any additional or varied functions given to the Commission under this Clause must be related to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Dean: Might I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his new appointment. I am sure that there will be people, inside and outside the House, who will be sorry that he is leaving the health sphere.
We welcome this Amendment. As the Minister said, we had fears that as the Clause stood, it was far too wide and we are glad that he has made it clear that no new powers can be conferred which are not within the compass of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO DEALING WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 5, line 39, leave out "field trials" and insert "medicinal tests on animals".

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments 18, 20, 21, plus the Amendment thereto, 22, plus Amendments, 23, 24, plus Amendments, 25 to 54, 57 to 62, 65 to 71, 76 to 79, 133, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, and 169 to 175. It looks a formidable list but the grouping makes sense.

Mr. Robinson: May I thank the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) for his kind remarks and good wishes. It is perhaps unusual that a translation of this kind takes place with delay action, but at least it gives me time to see through the final stages of this Bill, for which, complex though it is, I have developed a somewhat perverse affection.
Amendments 2 and 18 prepare the way for the new Clauses A to E which replace Clause 31, covering clinical and field trials, which was in the Bill as passed by this House. The replacement gives rise to these numerous consequential Amendments, and I am grateful to you Mr. Speaker and the House, for agreeing to discuss them together. The five new Clauses concerned with clinical trials and medicinal tests on animals were drafted in the light of some of the criticisms and suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members opposite.
My hon. Friend said then that Clause 31 and the succeeding Clauses would be considered further in the light of those criticisms. One criticism was that Clause 31 did not sufficiently distinguish between the different factors which affect the use of drugs in men and in animals. As to drugs for humans, control is first imposed under Part II, when a new drug is to be used in a clinical trial, that is therapeutically, in circumstances where there is a doctor-patient relationship.
The field trial was envisaged as the equivalent therapeutic control trial of animals. Under Clause 31, control was also first imposed at this stage. However, even at the pre-clinical stage, animal tests can give rise to hazards to human or animal health, for example from undesirable residues in animal products sold for human consumption.
New Clause D in particular is designed to deal with this by controlling the sale of animal products for human consumption. We came to the conclusion that further safeguarding provisions would be appropriate, and in the new Clauses control is not limited to those tests on animals which have a therapeutic purpose. The expression "medicinal tests on animals" has been substituted for the expression "field trials" throughout, since the latter expression was felt to be too narrow in its connotation to cover the extended kinds of tests with which these new Clauses are concerned.
A further objection to Clause 31 was that in limiting the requirement to hold a certificate simply to the importer of the drugs or the person "responsible for its composition" it imposed too narrow a control and could have allowed an entrepreneur, or a manufacturer acting through a third party, to escape the need for a certificate. The new Clauses stop up this loophole.
We have found it necessary to table four further Amendments to this group of Lords Amendments. The first two, which are new Clauses B and C, are to bring certain provisions relating to medicinal tests on animals into line with the corresponding provisions in Amendment 20 relating to clinical trials on humans. These provisions were amended to their present wording in the final stage in the House of Lords and it was not then possible to move consequential parallel Amendments in relation to medicinal tests in animals.
The other two Amendments to Amendment No. 24 are consequential on an Amendment introduced at the last stage in another place. This added to new Clause A a new subsection (6) modifying the exemption in subsection (5), and the other exemptions in what were originally subsections (6) and (7) were renumbered (7) and (8). The references in subsections (8)(a) and (10) of new Clause E to these exemptions consequently need to refer to all four subsections.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, Clause 31 and the following Clauses were breaking new ground and we therefore welcomed the constructive spirit in which the suggestions made in Committee were put forward. I think that the outcome has been to add appreciably to the number of Clauses in the Bill and to involve a fearsome collection of consequential Amendments, but I think that the House will agree that the total result is a real improvement.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: It would be ungracious of me if I did not thank the Minister of Health and join my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in congratulating him on his new position. The right hon. Gentleman has done a mammoth

task in bringing these new Amendments before the House, and I thank him for doing so. They very closely follow the points we made with such force in Committee. There were real difficulties as the Clause stood originally. These Amendments and the new Clause in place of Clause 31 add substantially to the benefit which will accrue from the Bill. I have had consultations with many interests since the Amendments were put forward. I have found very little criticism of them. These Amendments fulfil the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman claims for them and meet most of the objections we raised at earlier stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 22, at end insert:
( ) For the purposes of subsection (5) of this section a person shall be taken to be responsible for the composition of a medicinal product if (but only if) in the course of a business carried on by him—

(a) he procures the manufacture of the product to his order by another person, where the order specifies, or incorporates by reference to some other document, particulars of the composition of the product ordered, whether those particulars amount to a complete specification or not, or
(b) he manufactures the product otherwise than in pursuance of an order which fulfils the conditions specified in the preceding paragraph."

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss also Lords Amendment No. 154.

Mr. K. Robinson: The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the definition of responsibility for composition on which, apart from imported products, the requirement to hold a product licence depends, in particular by making it clear that such responsibility does not transfer to the manufacturer producing a product to the order of another simply because that other person's specification is incomplete. This point is of particular importance in the making up of a special order where a practitioner may leave some latitude in formulations to the manufacturer. The Amendment to Clause 118 is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

EXEMPTIONS FOR PHARMACISTS

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 9. line 9, at end insert:
and those restrictions do not apply to any thing which is done in a hospital or a health centre by or under the supervision of a pharmacist and consists of preparing a stock of medicinal products with a view to dispensing them as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that under the Clause authority was given to exempt pharmacists from licensing provisions otherwise applicable in the matter of stock mixtures. The Amendment merely extends such authority to the preparation of stock mixtures in hospitals and in health centres, subject to their being prepared under the supervision of a pharmacist.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13

EXEMPTIONS FOR IMPORTS

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 10, line 17, leave out "his own personal use" and insert:
administration to himself or to any person or persons who are members of his household ".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the doubts expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) about the meaning of the expression "for his own personal use" in relation to exemption from import control, and, in particular, to make it clear that the exemption from the need to hold a product licence for the purpose of importing a medicinal product does not cover importation by a farmer of a product intended for his own animals or by a veterinarian for use in his professional practice. During the

course of subsequent discussion the question arose as to whether pets were part of the household. Speaking personally, it usually works that way. In point of fact it was considered to be rather too large a loophole and of danger to the agricultural industry.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it correct that the Parliamentary Secretary said that it does not include animals in the veterinary surgeon's own household?

Mr. Snow: Yes, I said that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16

TRANSITIONAL EXEMPTIONS

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 11, line 21, after "if" insert:
in the course of a business carried on by him, and medicinal products of that description were sold or supplied, or procured to be sold, supplied, manufactured or assembled, at any time before the first appointed day and

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Though differently worded, the Amendment is very similar in its object to an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), its purpose being to limit the transitional exemption in subsection (2) to products which the promoter himself had effectively on the market at the first appointed day.
My right hon. Friend resisted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, on the ground that it would at an early stage in the operation of the new licensing scheme involve extra work for the licensing authority in dealing with standard preparations—that is, those for which a standard appears in such official compendia as the British Pharmacopaeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex—and that in any event the requirement for the new product to be of the same description as the older one was a very severe test in the light of the provisions in Clause 117.
However, since that time additional arguments have been advanced on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry and, in the light of this, my right hon. Friend


thinks that there has been some underlining of the potentially dangerous situation which could arise if a manufacturer were to launch a new product during the transitional period without a licence and based purely on his own assessment, which was unchecked, as to his own product being of the same description as another product already on the market.
In the light of these representations, which underly what was said by the hon. Gentleman, we think it right to make the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21

PROCEDURE ON REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION

Lords Amendment No, 7: In page 16, line 8, leave out from "report" to "and" in line 9 and insert:
to the licensing authority their findings and advice and the reasons for their advice".

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take all the Amendments up to No. 17, Amendment No. 19, and Amendments Nos. 156–165, all of which are akin.

Mr. Robinson: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 7–16 is to improve the procedure under the Clause relating to the grant or refusal of licences under Clause 20, by ensuring that reasons are given in certain cases where this is not explicitly provided in the Bill as drafted and by making some additional requirements about the hearing of representations made to the licensing authority.
Briefly, the Amendments provide, first, that the appropriate committee or the commission will now give advice or findings and advice throughout, together with the reasons for the advice, which the licensing authority must notify to the applicant or licence holder at all stages where he has the opportunity to request a hearing or make written representations.
Second, the person appointed by the licensing authority to hold a hearing under

Clause 21(5) is not to be an employee of the Health or Agriculture Departments unless the applicant agrees.
Third, the hearing by such a person is to be in public if the applicant so requests, and a copy of his report is to be furnished to the applicant if he requests it. Later Amendments make similar changes in other parts of the Bill.
Thus, the applicant or licence holder will know at all stages the reasons for the adverse advice or the proposed adverse decision. The final decision itself will be reasoned, and the applicant will not be left in ignorance of the relevant particulars if he wishes to consider applying to the High Court under Clause 99 questioning the authority's decision on the grounds there provided.
As regards publicity, the Amendments do not propose that hearings should automatically be in public or that the report of the person appointed should be published in the Press, because they may well concern matters which the applicant would regard as confidential. For example, he might not wish his competitors to become aware of his plans to market a new product.
The important point is that the aggrieved party should be fully informed of the relevant matters. I am sure that the House will regard these as valuable improvements to the Bill.

Mr. Dean: I do not propose to thank the right hon. Gentleman every time for meeting points which we put from this side, for otherwise I might well be accused of tedious repetition. We very much welcome this change in the Bill. When one is dealing with matters of great importance such as the grant or refusal of a licence, it is only right that those concerned should know the reasons which are given.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The industry at large will, I am sure, regard these Amendments as eminently sensible. The factor of greatest importance in relation to the Bill is that there should be a sense of fair play and that justice should be seen to be done. I am sure that the Amendments will go some way towards meeting that requirement.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have an interest to declare here, but I


am sure that it is in the interests also of his late Ministry and of the new Department as well as of the whole pharmaceutical industry and others concerned that there should be such an arrangement as is now proposed.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has done. I have one question only. The applicant is to have the right to request a public hearing if he wishes. Does the same apply to the person appointed if he should consider that it is in the public interest to have a public hearing? May

" B.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall, in the course of a business carried on by him—



(a) sell or supply any medicinal product for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals, or


5
(b) procure the sale or supply of any medicinal product for the purposes of such a test, or



(c) procure the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of such a test,


10
unless one or other of the conditions specified in the next following subsection is fulfilled.



(2) Those conditions, in relation to a person doing any of the things specified in the preceding subsection, are—


15
(a) that he is the holder of a product licence which authorises the test in question, or he does it to the order of the holder of such a licence, and (in either case) he does it in accordance with that licence;


20
(b) that a certificate for the purposes of this section (in this Act referred to as an 'animal test certificate') has been issued certifying that, subject to the provisions of the certificate, the licensing authority have consented to the test in question and that certificate is for the time being in force and the test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.


25
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall import any medicinal product for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals unless either—


30
(a) he is the holder of a product licence which authorises that test, or imports the product to the order of the holder of such a licence, and (in either case) he imports it in accordance with that licence, or


35
(b) an animal test certificate has been issued certifying as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section and that certificate is for the time being in force and the test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate.


40
(4) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, no person shall, in the course of a business carried on by him, administer any substance or article to an animal by way of a medicinal test on animals, or procure any substance or article to be so administered, unless either—


45
(a) in the case of a medicinal product, there is in force a product licence (whether held by him or by another person) which authorises that test and the product is administered in accordance with that licence or in accordance with any instructions required by the licence to be communicated to the person carrying out the test, or


50
(b) whether the substance or article is a medicinal product or not, an animal test certificate has been issued certifying as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section

he in his own right decide that there should be such public hearing?

Mr. K. Robinson: No; it is a one-sided option.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "B"

MEDICINAL TESTS ON ANIMALS

Lords Amendment No. 21: In page 27, line 1, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "B":

and that certificate is for the time being in force and the substance or article is administered in accordance with that certificate.


55
(5) For the purposes of this section a product licence shall be taken to be a licence which authorises a particular medicinal test on animals if—



(a) the substance or article to be administered in the test is a medicinal product of a description to which the licence relates, and


60
(b) the uses of medicinal products of that description which are referred to in the licence are such as to include their use for the purposes of that test.



(6) In this Act 'medicinal test on animals' means any of the following, that is to say—


65
(a) the administration of a medicinal product of a particular description to one or more animals, where there is evidence that medicinal products of that description have effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, that animal or those animals, and the product is administered for the purpose of ascertaining whether, or to what extent, it has those or any other effects, whether advantageous or otherwise;


70


75
(b) the administration of a medicinal product to one or more animals in circumstances where there is no such evidence as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and the product is administered for the purpose of ascertaining whether, or to what extent, it has any effects relevant to a medicinal purpose;


80
(c) the administration of any substance or article, other than a medicinal product, to one or more animals for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has any effects relevant to a medicinal purpose, whether there is evidence that it has effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, that animal or those animals or not."


85

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to: In line 63, after 'means' insert:
an investigation or series of investigations consisting of'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

"C.—(1) The restrictions imposed by subsections (1) and (4) of section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act do not apply to anything done in relation to a substance or article for the purposes or by way of a medicinal test on animals if—


5
(a) the test is, or is to be, carried out in circumstances where there is no evidence that the substance or article has effects which may be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to. the animal or animals to which it is, or is to be, administered, and


10
(b) the arrangements for the test are such as to secure that no animal to which the substance or article is administered in the course of the test, and no carcase or part of the carcase or produce of any such animal, will be sold or supplied for human consumption.


15
(2) Subject to the next following subsection, the restrictions imposed by subsections (1) and (4) of that section do not apply to a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner in respect of his—


20
(a) selling or supplying, or procuring the sale or supply of, a medicinal product for the purpose of its being administered to one or more animals which are under his care, or

New Clause "C"

EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF MEDICINAL TESTS ON ANIMALS

Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 27, line 1, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "C":

25
(b) procuring the manufacture or assembly of a medicinal product where the product is specially prepared to his order for the purpose of its being administered to one or more such animals, or



(c) administering a substance or article to an animal which is under his care, or procuring a substance or article to be so administered.


30
(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect so as to exempt from the restrictions in question anything done—



(a) in relation to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, or


35
(b) in relation to any other vaccine, unless the vaccine is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived, or



(c) in relation to plasma or a serum, unless the plasma or serum is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived.


40
(4) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of that section do not apply to anything which is done in a registered pharmacy and is done there by or under the supervision of a pharmacist and consists of dispensing a medicinal product in accordance with a prescription given by a


45
veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner, and those restrictions do not apply to anything done by or under the supervision of a pharmacist which consists of procuring the preparation or dispensing of a medical product in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner or of procuring the assembly of a medicinal product.


50



(5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) of that section also do not apply to anything done in relation to a medicinal product where—


55
(a) it is clone by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product to the order of a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner who has stated that it is required for administration to an animal or herd which is under his care, or is required, at the request of another veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner, for administration to an animal or herd which is under the care of that other veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner, or


60


65
(b) it is done by the person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, has manufactured or assembled the product to the order of a pharmacist in accordance with a prescription given by a practitioner, or


70
(c) it consists of selling the product by way of wholesale dealing where it has been manufactured or assembled in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection.


75
(6) The exemptions conferred by subsections (4) and (5) of this section do not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, and do not apply to any other vaccine or any plasma or serum prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd unless—



(a) in the case of a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived, or


80
(b) in the case of a plasma or a serum, it has been specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived."

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to: In line 30, after 'section', insert:

'shall not have effect in relation to a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner where the medicinal test in question is to be carried out under arrangements made by, or at the request of, another person, and (where the arrangements are made by the veterinary


surgeon or veterinary practitioner and not at the request of any other person)'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

"E.—(1) The restrictions imposed by section 7 of this Act do not apply to anything done in accordance with a clinical trial certificate or an animal test certificate.



(2) The restrictions imposed by section 8(2) of this Act—


5
(a) do not apply to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for the sole purpose of its being administered by way of a clinical trial, or of its being sold, supplied or exported for the sole purpose of being so administered, and


10
(b) do not apply to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for the sole purpose of its being administered by way of a medicinal test on animals, or of its being sold, supplied or exported for the sole purpose of its being so administered, unless the product falls within a class of medicinal products specified in an order made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Agriculture Ministers.


15


20
(3) No class of medicinal products shall be specified in an order for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section unless it appears to the Agriculture Ministers to be requisite to do so for securing that the exemption conferred by that paragraph does not apply to medicinal products consisting wholly or partly of substances the purity or potency of which cannot, in their opinion, be adequately tested by chemical means.


25
(4) Neither the restrictions imposed by section 7 of this Act nor those imposed by section (Clinical trials) (2) of this Act apply to anything done exclusively for the purpose of a clinical trial which is to be carried out wholly outside the United Kingdom; and neither the restrictions imposed by section 7 of this Act nor those imposed by section (Medicinal tests on animals) (1) of this Act apply to anything done in relation to a medicinal product for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals which is to be carried out wholly outside the United Kingdom, unless the product falls within a class specified in an order made for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) of his section.


30


35



(5) Where the holder of a manufacturer's licence manufactures or assembles any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of a clinical trial or a medicinal test on animals, and—


40
(a) a clinical trial certificate or animal test certificate has been issued and is for the time being in force in respect of that trial or test, and the trial or test is to be carried out in accordance with that certificate, and


45
(b) the product is so manufactured or assembled as to comply with any requirements of the certificate relating to the products to be administered in the trial or test,



then, if the conditions specified in subsection (1) of section 23 of this Act are not fulfilled in relation to the product, that section shall have effect in relation to it as if those conditions were fulfilled.


50
(6) Without prejudice to subsection (5) of this section, section 23(1) of this Act shall not have effect in relation to the manufacture or assembly of any medicinal product for sale or supply for the purposes of a medicinal test on animals, where the product falls within a class specified in an order made for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) of this section.


55



(7) For the purposes of sections (Clinical trials) and (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act a person shall not be treated as

New Clause "E"

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CLINICAL TRIALS AND MEDICINAL TESTS ON ANIMALS.

Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 27, line 1, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "E":

doing anything, or procuring anything to be done, for the purposes of a clinical trial or of a medicinal test on animals if—


60
(a) the trial or test is, or is to be, carried out under arrangements to which he is not a party, and



(b) he has not been informed of those arrangements.



(8) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide—


65
(a) that subsection (2) or subsection (4) of section (Clinical trials) of this Act shall have effect subject to such exemptions (other than those for the time being having effect by virtue of subsections (5) to (7) of that section and subsection (4) of this section) as may be specified in the order;


70
(b) that section (Medicinal tests on animals) of this Act shall have effect subject to such exemptions (other than those for the time being having effect by virtue of section (Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals) of this Act and subsection (4) of this section) as may be so specified.


75



(9) Any exemption conferred by an order under subsection (8) of this section may be conferred subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in the order.


80
(10) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide that any of the provisions of subsections (5) to (7) of section (Clinical trials) of this Act, or any of the provisions of section (Exemptions in respect of medicinal tests on animals) of this Act, or subsection (4) of this section, shall cease to have effect, or shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the order.


85



(11) No order shall be made under subsection (10) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

Read a Second time.

Amendments to the proposed Amendment agreed to: In line 67, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.

In line 80 leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

"F.—(1) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person incorporates a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, in any animal feeding stuff with a view to—


5
(a) feeding it, with the substance or article incorporated in it, to one or more animals, or



(b) selling, supplying or exporting it with the substance or article incorporated in it,


10
and the substance or article is so incorporated by him for a medicinal purpose, sections 36(3) and 37 of this Act shall have effect in relation to the incorporation of that substance or article as if it were a medicinal product.



(2) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person proposes—


15
(a) to sell or supply a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, to persons who for a medicinal purpose may require to incorporate it in animal feeding stuffs to be fed to one or more animals, or


20
(b) to manufacture a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, for sale or supply as mentioned in the preceding paragraph,



he may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if it were a medicinal product

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "F"

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO INCORPORATION OB SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES IN ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS.

Lords Amendment No. 55: In page 33, line 34, at end insert new Clause "F":

25
and he were proposing to sell or supply it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may be renewed, suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.


30
(3) Where a person proposes to sell, supply or manufacture a substance or article, other than a medicinal product, in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, any person who proposes, by purchase or otherwise, to obtain from him a supply of the substance or article with a view to incorporating it for a medicinal purpose in any animal feeding stuff may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if it were a medicinal product and he were proposing to procure the sale or supply, or the manufacture for sale or supply, of that product in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may be renewed, suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.


35


40


45
(4) On the grant, renewal or variation (whether by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section or otherwise) of a product licence, in so far as it relates to any substance or article which is to be incorporated in animal feeding stuffs, the licence may (without prejudice to the generality of section 20(1) of this Act) include provisions as to the manner in which the substance or article in question may be so incorporated, whether by the holder of the licence or by any other person to whom those provisions of the licence have been communicated.


50


55
(5) Without prejudice to the operation of section 117(6) of this Act, a substance manufactured, sold, supplied or exported as an animal feeding stuff shall not be taken to be a medicinal product for the purposes of this Act by reason only that any of the preceding provisions of this section has effect in relation to a substance or article incorporated in it.


60
(6) The appropriate Ministers may by order provide that any of the provisions of section 36 of this Act or of subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall cease to have effect, or shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as may be specified in the order.


65
(7) No order shall be made under subsection (6) of this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take, at the same time, the consequential Government Amendment to the Bill, in page 94, line 24, after 'incorporated', insert:
'or in which any substance or article has been incorporated for a medicinal purpose'
and also Lords Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 75, 101, 141, 143 and 144. They are all linked.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new Clause "F" set out in Lords Amendment No. 55 has been introduced in the light of the constructive comment made in Committee and as a result of further Departmental consideration. It is generally accepted that any substance or article added to an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose should be the

subject of appropriate control. The object of this Clause is to treat any substance or article as a medicinal product for the purposes of Clauses 36(3) and 37 if, although it is not a medicinal product, it is incorporated in an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose.
Subsection (1) achieves this end. The important point to note is that, whereas, for instance, a mineral or vitamin added to an animal feeding stuff for such a purpose would be subject to the provisions of the Clause, a vitamin or mineral added to the feed solely to balance the dietary mixture would not be subject to such control because it would not be "for a medicinal purpose". I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) will have instances in mind, for example, the use of a mineral such as copper to balance the diet but which can also be used in larger quantities to help growth, and so on.
Subsection (2) enables a person selling, supplying or manufacturing a substance which may be added to feeding stuffs for a medicinal purpose to apply for a product licence for that substance as though it were a medicinal product.
Similarly, subsection (3) provides that a person who proposes to obtain such a substance in order to add it to an animal feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose may also apply for a product licence for that substance. This is to enable the substance to be so used as a medicinal feed additive even though its importer or the person responsible for its composition does not choose to get a product licence for this purpose.
Subsection (4) makes clear that a product licence, in so far as it relates to any substance to be incorporated in animal feeding stuffs, may include provisions about such incorporation whether by the licence holder or anyone who may have been told of those provisions.
1.0 p.m.
Subsection (5) provides that a feeding-stuff shall not itself be taken to be a medicinal product simply because the provisions of the Clause apply to a substance included in it.
Finally, subsections (6) and (7) provide for Ministers by Order to terminate or modify the provisions of Clause 36 or subsections (1) to (5) of this Clause. The Order would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. This provision has been introduced in the interests of maintaining an appropriate degree of flexibility, a word much used in Committee for a complex field.
The other Amendments are consequential to the new Clause as is that to Clause 102(4). This allows arrangements to be made by the Northern Ireland Ministers relating to enforcement in Northern Ireland in respect of

"G.—(1) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person sells or exports a substance or article for use wholly or mainly in either or both of the ways specified in section 117(1) of this Act, and the substance or article, not having been—


5
(a) manufactured or imported for such use, or


10
(b) previously sold or supplied for such use, does not constitute a medicinal product before that person so sells or exports it, then (subject to subsection (2) of this section) subsection (2) of section 7 of this Act, if apart from this subsection it would not so have effect, shall have effect in relation to the sale or exportation of the substance or article as if he were selling or exporting it in circumstances to which that subsection applies.

animal feedingstuffs in which substances and articles incorporated for a medicinal purpose as well as those into which medicinal products have been incorporated.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on bringing this subject before the House again. These Amendments get over one of the most difficult problems which we met when we discussed the matter in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, one does not want to penalise those manufacturers who want only to bring a compound to a balanced diet level. This has been a very thorny problem and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity with which it has been solved.
This, too, has met with the approval of those in the industry who will have to deal with it, because not only does it get over the problem, but it gives the manufacturer a choice, because he will be able to apply for a product licence if he wishes. The final safeguard, for which I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, is the fact that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which is a very satisfactory way in which to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

A consequential Amendment made to the Bill in page 94, line 24, insert after "incorporated" the words "or in which any substance or article has been incorporated for a medicinal purpose".

New Clause "G"

EXTENSION OF SECTION 7 TO CERTAIN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Lords Amendment No. 56: In page 33, line 34, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "G":

15
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not have effect in relation to a person selling a substance or article by retail in the course of a business carried on by him unless in the course of that business the substance or article has been assembled for the purpose of being sold by him.


20
(3) In any reference in this Part of this Act to the provisions of, or the restrictions imposed by, section 7 of this Act, the reference to that section shall be construed as including a reference to subsection (2) of that section as extended by the preceding subsections.


25
(4) Where in the course of a business carried on by him a person proposes to sell or export a substance or article for use as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, where the substance or article will not constitute a medicinal product before he so sells or exports it and he will not be selling or exporting it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies, he may, if he so desires, apply for a product licence in respect of that substance or article, and the licensing authority (subject to the provisions of sections 19 to 22 of this Act) may grant to him a product licence in respect of it, as if he were proposing to sell or export it in circumstances to which section 7(2) of this Act applies; and a product licence so granted may be renewed suspended, revoked or varied accordingly.


30


35


40
(5) In subsection (2) of this section the reference to assembling a substance or article in the course of a business carried on by a person is a reference to doing in the course of that business anything which (in accordance with section 118(1) of this Act) would constitute assembling it if it had been a medicinal product when sold or supplied to him."

Read a Second time.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irvine): With this we are to take the following consequential Amendments to the Lords Amendment:
In line 8, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.
In line 11, after 'sale', insert 'supply'.
In line 12, after 'selling', insert 'supplying'.
In line 15, leave out from first 'a' to 'unless' in line 16 and insert:
'transaction whereby a person, in the course of a business carried on by him, sells a substance or article by retail or supplies a substance or article in circumstances corresponding to retail sale'.
In line 18, after 'sold', insert 'or supplied'.
In line 25, after 'sell', insert 'supply'.
In line 28, after 'sells', insert 'supplies'.
In line 28, after 'selling', insert 'supplying'.
In line 33, after 'sell', insert 'supply'.

Mr. Robinson: The purpose of new Clause G is to extend the requirement to hold a product licence in respect of a medicinal product to some substances

not at present covered by the Bill. Under the definition in Clause 117(1), it is possible for a substance or article to be something other than a medicinal product at its time of manufacture or import, but subsequently to become a medicinal product on being marketed wholly or mainly for medicinal purposes. For example, this might arise when an ordinary chemical substance which has many uses is packaged, labelled and sold with medicinal directions.
When the person who first markets such a product for medicinal purposes is its importer or the person responsible for composition, Clause 7 requires him to hold a product licence if he sells or supplies the product, but as it stands the Clause does not place a licensing obligation on other people selling or supplying. This is because where the person responsible for composition holds a licence, it would not be reasonable to place a licensing obligation on each successive dealer in the product as well.
But the consequence is that, as the Bill stands, if the first person to market the product for medicinal purposes is someone other than the importer or the person responsible for composition, no product licensing obligation arises. It is this loophole which new Clause G is intended to fill by providing that a product licence should be held and enabling the person concerned to apply for a product licence.


Subsection (2) is intended to put the retailer in the same position as the wholesaler where he is consciously setting out to sell the substance as a medicinal product.
There is, however, a defect in the new Clause as it was included in another place in that no mention is made of "supplying" otherwise than by way of sale. The absence of such a reference would mean that the loophole which I have mentioned would not be closed in such circumstances as where a single fee for treatment covered both professional advice and the supplying of medicine, or where artificial arrangements not amounting to sales were made between mushroom companies operating at "wholesale" or "retail" levels and the person who is really setting out to market the product. The 10 Government Amendments to the Lords Amendment are accordingly intended to improve the Lords Amendment by inserting appropriate references to supplying.

Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Amendments to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 40

SPECIAL DEFENCES UNDER SECTION 39

Lords Amendment No. 72: In page 37, line 8, leave out from "36" to "it" in line 9.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 73 and 74.

Mr. Mackie: The special defence in Clause 40(3) in proceedings for a contravention of the Clause relating to medicated animal feedingstuffs dealt with the case where the person concerned was not the holder of a product licence or animal test certificate and the act constituting the contravention was done to the order of someone else.
These Amendments make the defence apply where the person concerned had

reasonable grounds for believing that some other person, not necessarily only the person to whose order the act was done, held the licence and that the substance or article to which the contravention relates was incorporated in the feedstuff in accordance with the licence or certificate.
This extension would be relevant, for example, in the case when the manufacturers of the medicinal additive held the product licence and some other person who proposed to market a feed containing the additive requested a compounder to mix it for him in accordance with the provisions of the licence held by the manufacturer.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 42

POSTPONEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS IN RELATION TO EXPORTS

Lords Amendment No. 80: In page 39. line 33, after "Act" insert:
but subject to the next following section".

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 81, which is new Clause H—"Special provisions in respect of exporting certain products".

Mr. Robinson: The purpose of new Clause H, to which Lords Amendment No. 80 is a paving Amendment, is to exclude a limited category of export products from the provisions of Clause 42 which postponed for export-only products the operation of the licensing provisions in Part II. The excluded products in question are the "therapeutic substances" whose manufacture for sale is already now subject to licensing under Part I of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, or Part II of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, and this includes sale for export, The need for this provision has been accepted by the pharmaceutical trade associations and I referred to it on Report and I think that the need was also accepted by hon. Members opposite.
The products to which the new Clause is to apply are to be specified in Orders made under subsection (2). It is the Government's intention that initially the list should be the same as that to which licensing currently applies and that it would be extended in future where appropriate on the same general principles as are currently followed under the two existing Acts which I have mentioned, that is, control would be related to the therapeutic importance of the substance and the need for strictly controlled biological tests to ensure safety, quality and potency. The principal provisions of the Clause are to be found in the first two subsections. The remaining provisions apply appropriate transitional provisions and provide for licences of right to cover products which were being exported before the first appointed day.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: We on this side of the House seem to say very nice things to the Minister about him and his Bill. Having taken an interest in the export provisions of the Bill at an earlier stage, I should like to express appreciation to him for the constructive way in which he has dealt with some of the points which we raised earlier. We accept them and are grateful to him for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

EXEMPTIONS FOR DOCTORS, DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS

Lords Amendment No. 82: In page 44, leave out lines 27 to 31 and insert:
'( ) Those restrictions also do not apply—

(a) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product of a description, or falling within a class, specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph, where the product is sold or supplied by a registered nurse in the course of her professional practice, or
(b) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product of a description, or falling within a class, specified in an order made by the Health Ministers for the purposes of this paragraph, where the product either is sold or supplied by a certified midwife (or, in relation to England and Wales, by a certified

midwife or exempted midwife) in the course of her professional practice or is delivered or administered by such a midwife on being supplied in pursuance of arrangements made by a local health authority in Great Britain or by a health authority in Northern Ireland."

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be appropriate to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 134 and 135.

Mr. Robinson: Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 48(1) were inserted by Government Amendments on Report stage in this House to fill a gap in the Bill when we realised that the supply of a drug to a hospital patient or to the patient of a nurse or midwife technically involved a retail sale or
supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale".
It would not have been reasonable to leave such sale or supply subject to the requirements of Clauses 45 and 46 which were specifically designed to cover sale or supply at pharmacies, retail shops, and the like.
The amended Clause has, however, been criticised on two grounds. First, that by giving a total exemption for health centres and for hospitals—and "hospitals" is a word which has quite a wide connotation—the Bill would make it impossible to introduce, without amending legislation, safeguards that might one day be felt to be essential relating to the organisation of hospital and clinic arrangements for the supply of medicines to patients. The second criticism was that exemption for nurses and midwives selling or supplying medicines in the course of their profession might be misinterpreted as being wider than we intended.
There is some substance in both points. Amendment No. 82 accordingly restates the exemption for nurses and midwives and limits it to products specified in an order. Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 give a power to terminate or modify by order subject to affirmative resolution the exemptions in Clause 48 for hospitals and health centres and for nurses and midwives but not those for practitioners.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are consequential. The first makes the orders


listing products which nurses and mid-wives may supply subject to negative resolution, which is in line with other provisions for listing medicinal products in connection with other restrictions under the Bill. The second is purely consequential to the Amendment to Clause 50.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58

COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN MONOGRAPHS IN CERTAIN PUBLI CATIONS.

Lords Amenmdent No. 85: In page 53, line 37, leave out from "any" to "and" in line 38 and insert:
general monograph or notice or any appendix, note or other explanatory material which is contained in that edition and is applicable to that monograph".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be appropriate to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89.

Mr. Snow: These five Amendments are concerned with the interpretation of monographs in official compendia. Amendment No. 85 makes it clear that all relevant provisions of an edition of a compendium apply to the interpretation of a monograph in it.
Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 enable the Medicines Commission to approve synonyms which are, for the purposes of Clause 58, to have the same validity as the name at the head of a monograph in the European Pharmacopoeia. This is necessary because a decision by the European Pharmacopoeia Commission to limit the number of names at the head of a monograph would otherwise result in the loss of official status for recognised synonyms.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 59

FURTHER POWERS TO REGULATE DEALINGS WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Lords Amendment No. 90: In page 54, line 35, at end insert:
(aa) the amount of space to be provided in any premises for persons preparing or dispensing medicinal products, the separation of any such space from the remainder of the premises, and the facilities to be provided in any premises for such persons;
(ab) the amount of space to be provided in any premises for the sale or supply of medicinal products;
(ac) the accommodation (including the amount of space) to be provided in any premises for members of the public to whom medicinal products are sold or supplied or for whom medicinal products are being prepared or assembled;
(ad) the amount of space to be provided in any premises for the storage of medicinal products.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During the Report stage, an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and was accepted, which made it clear that requirements as to construction, layout, equipment and the other matters mentioned in Clause 59(2) can be included in regulations only in so far as they can be related to one or more of the purposes in Clause 59(1).
It became evident in another place that the purposes listed in Clause 59(1) might not cover all the points which it would be important to cover in regulations relating to the suitability of premises used for the preparation, sale, storage, and so on, of medicinal products. The purpose of the Amendment is to include specific references to these matters.
Clause 68 provides for the registration of new pharmacy premises to be withheld if they do not in a material respect satisfy the requirements of regulations as to suitability made under Clause 59, this investigation being made by the health department concerned. The Bill must enable regulations to be made providing an adequate basis for this.
The additional points mentioned in paragraph (aa) in the Amendment are related specifically to preparation and dispensing and would therefore have no


application to ordinary shops. Those in paragraphs (ab), (ac) and (ad) with regard to selling space, space for customers and storage are of general application, but different provisions would need to be made as appropriate to different kinds of premises, and there must, as the House knows, be consultation with the interests appearing to the Minister to be likely to be affected before any regulation can be made.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I hate to disturb the general euphoria, although I, too, am very sorry that the Minister is leaving the Ministry of Health. Others who have lived through the Bill with him will feel the same.
In Committee, my hon. Friends and I protested loud and long about the apparent restrictions which were to be placed on the ordinary village shop and the difficulties which the ordinary village shopkeeper might find himself in simply by wishing to sell aspirin tablets. We thought that we made our point fairly adequately. We are therefore disappointed that this Amendment appears to impose even more restrictions on the private village shop. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that different regulations would need to be made in different cases.
We urge him, or his successor, when making such regulations to let off the village shopkeeper lightly, because such shops serve a real purpose in supplying simple household remedies to a large number of people who live nowhere near a chemist's shop.

Mr. Dean: I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify one point. He said paragraph (aa) does not apply to the ordinary shop. I am not clear whether the same argument goes for the other paragraphs.

Mr. K. Robinson: With leave, may I say that paragraph (aa) is related specifically to preparation and dispensing. Therefore, it does not apply to ordinary shops. Paragraphs (ab), (ac), and (ad) deal with selling space, space for customers and storage, and they are of general application. But different provisions

would need to be made for different premises.
We are completely sincere in our assurance about consulting all interests likely to be concerned before any regulations are drafted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment No. 91: In page 57, line 19, after "each "insert", or in Scotland, one more,".

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be appropriate to take at the same time Amendment No. 92.

Mr. Millan: The object of these Amendments is to provide that in Scotland, where there are partnerships between pharmacists and non-pharmacists it should be possible for them to become
persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business
provided that the pharmacist partner or another pharmacist is in personal control of the business. Clause 62(1)(a), as it now stands, requires each of the partners to be a pharmacist.
In Scotland, however, there are at least 70 firms with premises registered under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, where there is a partnership between pharmacist and non-pharmacist. Many of these are family partnerships of husband and wife or other relatives. If these Amendments were not to be made all these partnerships would require to be dissolved or converted into bodies corporate.
The Amendment to Clause 62(1)(a) provides that in Scotland one or more of the partners shall be a pharmacist. The effect of the Amendment to Clause 63 is that in Scotland the business, so far as it concerns the retail sale of medicinal products, must be under the personal control of one or more of the partners who is a pharmacist or that of another pharmacist.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

POWER TO EXTEND OR MODIFY CONDITIONS

Lords Amendment No. 93: In page 61, line 19, leave out from "order" to end of line 31 and insert:
add to, revoke or vary any of the provisions of sections 63 to 65 of this Act, so as either—
(a) to modify, or provide new conditions in substitution for, the conditions referred to in any of the paragraphs of section 62(1) of this Act, or
(b) for the purposes of any of those paragraphs, to provide alternative conditions compliance which with is to have the like effect as compliance with the conditions referred to in that paragraph.
( ) Any provision made by an order in accordance with subsection (1) of this section may be made either generally or in relation to any particular circumstances specified in the order.
( ) Any order made under this section may direct that subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 62 of this Act shall have effect subject to such exceptions or modifications as appear to the Health Ministers to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provision made by the order in accordance with subsection (1) of this section.
( ) Where an order under this section if for the time being in force, any reference to section 52 of this Act in any other enactment as amended by this Act shall be construed as a reference to that section as modified by the order.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment provides for greater flexibility by making it possible to alter the conditions for persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business by adding to, varying or revoking the conditions in Clauses 63, 64 and 65. At present, while alternative conditions can be introduced, those specified, in Clauses 63, 64 and 65 have to remain in force, subject to the power of amendment, which is limited to modification and the prescribing of exceptions. This Amendment, therefore, gives us additional flexibility to cater for changes as they occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION OF PREMISES

Lords Amendment No. 94: In page 65, line 20, leave out "register" and insert "registrar".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment corrects a spelling mistake.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83

PROVISIONS AS TO MEDICATED ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS

Lords Amendment No. 95: In page 75, line 20, leave out from "section" to end of line 23 and insert:
no account shall be taken—

(a) of any mark which, in pursuance of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 1926, is made on a container or package, if the animal feeding stuff contained in it is of a kind specified in the first column of Part II of Schedule 1 to that Act, or
(b) of any statement which, in pursuance of that Act, is made in a leaflet supplied, or intended to be supplied, with any animal feeding stuff of a kind so specified"

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (3) of Clause 83 requires that for the purposes of subsection (2), which deals with the sale, or supply, or possession of medicated animal feeding-stuffs which are falsely or misleadingly described, statements or marks on a container, package, or leaflet applied in pursuance of the Fertiliser and Feeding-stuffs Act, 1926, shall be disregarded.
This Amendment limits this reference to feedingstuffs of a kind specified in the first column of Part II of Schedule I to that Act, which is in fact now to be found in Regulations (S.I. 1968 No. 218) that have superseded the original schedule and to which all the provisions of the 1926 Act apply.
Since it is only the items in Schedule 1 which may be the subject of criminal proceedings under Section 4 of the Fertilisers and Feedingstuffs Act, 1926 and we might wish to prosecute under Clause 83(2) in relation to an offence for which Schedule 2 of the 1926 Act is relevant, we do not wish this Schedule to be disregarded for the purposes of Clause 83(2). There is a comparable exclusion in Section 2(4) of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, in relation to false or misleading trade descriptions. I think that if I had been writing the brief myself I


should have said that this is so as not to have two Acts cutting across each other.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. I did not understand a word of it, because he was going so fast, but I will read it with great interest tomorrow.
In the interests of the people who are dealing with this Act, I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he, or his Ministry, will put out a simple explanation about where and how the law now stands.
The hon. Gentleman said that there could be cases in future where criminal proceedings might be taken. I think it is right that the public and the people dealing with these substances should be clear about their obligations and understand what sections and schedules of what Acts apply to them. They should be able to understand this clearly and easily. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Department can put out a simple explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89

ADVERTISEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS DIRECTED TO PRACTITIONERS

Lords Amendment No. 96: in page 83, line 8, leave out from "which" to "(3)" and insert:
neither subsection (2) nor subsection".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 97 and 98.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of these Amendments is to provide a change of syntax following the deletion made earlier in our proceedings when the transitional exemption conditions for exportation were transferred from Clause 16 to what is now Clause 42. There are now two as opposed to three subsections relevant. This is the change of syntax to which I have referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 95

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment No. 99: In page 88, line 8, after "compendium" insert "or a list of names".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 95, concerning the date on which a publication is to take effect, apply to a list of names published under Clause 93 as well as to the British Pharmacopoeia and other compendia. These names are names suitable to be used at the head of monographs in the British Pharmacopoeia or other official compendia. They are, of course, non-proprietary names.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "I"

CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO SPECIFIED PUBLICATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 100: In page 88, line 24, at end insert new Clause "I":
I.—(1) In this section 'specified publication' means any of the following, that is to say—

(a) the European Pharmacopeia;
(b) the British Pharmacopoeia;
(c) the British Pharmaceutical Codex;
(d) the British Veterinary Codex;
(e) the British National Formulary;
(f) the Dental Practitioners' Formulary;
(g) any compendium prepared under subsection (3) and published under subsection (6) of section 92 of this Act; and
(h) any list of names prepared and published under section 93 of this Act.

 (2) Where any licence granted or certificate issued under Part II of this Act refers to a specified publication, but not to a particular edition of that publication, then, for the purpose of determining whether anything done, at a time when the licence or certificate is in force, is done in accordance with the licence or certificate, the reference shall, unless the licence or certificate otherwise expressly pro vides, be construed as a reference to the current edition of that publication as in force at that time.
(3) Where under any enactment other than this Act (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) there is power to make any regulations, rules, order, list or other


instrument which is to have effect by virtue of, or for the purposes of, that enactment, and an instrument made in the exercise of that power—

(a) could be made so as to refer to the current edition of a specified publication as in force at the time when the instrument is made, but
(b) could not, apart from this subsection, be made so as to refer to the current edition of a specified publication as in force at a subsequent time,
the power to make the instrument may (unless, in the case of an enactment passed after this Act, the enactment otherwise expressly provides) be exercised so as to refer to the current edition of a specified publication as in force at such time (whether before, at or after the time when the instrument is made) as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the instrument.
(4) Where any such power as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section (in this subsection referred to as ' the primary power') includes power to vary instruments made in the exercise of the primary power, subsection (3) of this section shall have effect in relation to any exercise of the power to vary any such instrument (whether the instrument was made before, or is made after, the passing of this Act) as it has effect in relation to any exercise of the primary power.
(5) In this section any reference to the current edition of a specified publication as in force at a particular time is a reference to the edition of that publication in force at that time together with any amendments, additions and deletions made to it up to that time; and any reference to making an instrument in the exercise of a power conferred by an enactment shall be construed as including a reference to issuing or approving such an instrument.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The main purpose of this new Clause is to enable references in instruments made under statute to the current editions of the British Pharmacopaeia and other publications specified in subsection (1) to be construed as references to the editions current at the time of the matter in question unless the instruments expressly state otherwise. This arises from an objection made in the House of Commons in 1964 in a Report by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments that power enabling instruments to bear such an interpretation could not be assumed by a Minister unless it was specifically authorised by statute. Now that statutory recognition is given under Clause 58 to current monographs of the British Pharmacopaeia, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and other publications

referred to in Part VII of the Bill, it is appropriate to provide such authority. Similar provision is made with regard to licences and certificates issued under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 100

ENFORCEMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords Amendment No. 102: In page 90, line 43, after "of" insert:
any order made under paragraph (a) of section 55(1) of this Act and of".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be appropriate if we were to deal with Lords Amendments Nos. 105–116, Nos. 118–120 and No. 166.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This group of Amendments arises out of an undertaking that I gave both in Standing Committee and on Report to examine the enforcement role given in Clause 100 to the Pharmaceutical Society and to consider whether and to what extent food and drugs authorities should be brought into these enforcement functions. It also rectifies certain omissions which have been brought to light in Clause 100, as it then was, and covers the enforcement of the additional paragraphs added to Clause 59(1) by Amendment No. 90.
As the Bill left this House it placed the duty of enforcing Clause 59(1)(a) to (f) and Clauses 45, 46 and 47 on the Pharmaceutical Society, because the provisions of these Clauses and the requirements of the regulations to be made under them seemed broadly analogous to or, at any rate, no more than an extension of the kind of provisions that the Society has enforced for many years fairly, responsibly and effectively.
The main grounds of the criticism have been, first, that the Society has only about 15 qualified inspectors, which was thought to be a small number compared with the number of retail outlets for general sale list medicines, which some people think might be up to 150,000.
Secondly, as pharmacists are in competition with ordinary shop and health


food stores and are alleged to be unsympathetic to the techniques and activities of herbalists, it would be wrong for the Society, as the professional body of the pharmacists, to have this enforcement function, however meticulous and objective it may try to be. The critics suggested that local authorities, or food and drugs authorities instead, might do this, notwithstanding that the functions would be novel for them. Pronouncements by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society that drugs ought only to be sold to the public by retail pharmacists have also been quoted, and followed by the suggestion that it would be difficult for the Society's officers to avoid bias.
1.30 p.m.
I think that none of those arguments is conclusive. Whatever the council of the society may say, the authorised officers could only enforce the provisions in the regulations or in Clauses 46 and 47, and these could not include a restriction of the sale of drugs to pharmacies. In addition to the 15 inspectors which it has with pharmaceutical qualifications, the society employs other experienced persons in connection with its inspection duties, where professional qualifications are unnecessary. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the number is small in relation to the number of potential retail outlets.
Herbalism is an earlier form of pharmacy, and pharmacists are instructed in the techniques used even though they may think that many of the herbal remedies are now obsolete. Functions in regard to herbalists would be new for either local authorities or food and drugs authorities, and it is questionable how much detailed knowledge the officers of such authorities would have about herbalism. Subsections (4) and (5)(a) of Clause 100 are also somewhat defective in not providing for enforcement of the functions in question in places other than premises and in vehicles, ships, and so on, and, as they stand, could be inappropriate to the new paragraphs in Clause 59(1) introduced by Amendment No. 90.
The most important factor pointing to the desirability of a provision along the lines of the Amendment is the difficulty of foretelling at the present time the range of variations in the requirements to be

made in the regulations under Clauses 46 and 59 in relation to different persons and places, for example, pharmacies, ordinary shops and premises, vehicles and ships. In each case the appropriate enforcement authority could vary according to whether the products are on the general sale list, are human or veterinary medicines, herbal remedies, or, at some time in the future, medical or veterinary devices. In some cases the Pharmaceutical Society will undoubtedly be appropriate, in others the local authority or the food and drugs authority.
Looking only at the enabling powers, which is all we can do at present, I do not think we can be precise enough to be sure of getting the most appropriate allocation of functions. It will be much easier to decide on the appropriate enforcement authority when the regulations in question are known, and consultations take place about their enforcement.
In Section 87(3) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and the corresponding Scottish Act, there have for many years been powers which enable regulations to specify the relevant enforcement authorities for particular regulations, and this has proved a practical way of handling a situation in which it is difficult to foretell precisely where the enforcement functions should lie.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 109 therefore is to delete the present subsections (4) and (5)(a) of Clause 100 and the reference to Clauses 46 and 47 in subsection (5)(b), and to enable Ministers to make regulations specifying the appropriate enforcement authorities for specified regulations under Clause 59 and for the provisions of Clauses 46 and 47. The enforcement body has to be chosen from the Pharmaceutical Society, the food and drugs authorities, and, in the case of Clause 59, the local or public health authorities, the Ministers also having concurrent enforcement powers, or the regulations can leave the particular enforcement functions solely with the appropriate Minister.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 108 deal with a somewhat different aspect. They relate to the enforcement of prohibition orders on grounds of safety. Safety considerations might demand the utmost speed in enforcing the prohibition of sales from retail outlets. The food and drugs authorities, who are already mentioned in


this provision in connection with the composition of medicines, could be a most valuable means, alongside the Pharmaceutical Society and the Ministers, of securing it. Accordingly these Amendments transfer the reference to Clause 55(1)(a) from Clause 100(5)(c) under which the duty of enforcement rests with the Pharmaceutcial Society, and includes it in Clause 100(2)(a) with the provisions relating to the composition of medicinal products, so that the appropriate Ministers will be able to make arrangements with, or give directions to, either the food and drugs authorities or the Pharmaceutcial Society, or, in all probability, both, in respect of the enforcement of such orders.
The "enforcement regulations" provided for in the new subsections (4) and (4)(A) and the new subsection after (5) will be made in England and Wales by the Health and Agriculture Ministers jointly. Their making must be preceded by the usual consultations. Corresponding amendments to Clauses 101 and 102 make corresponding provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fortescue: We warmly welcome the Amendments, especially Amendment No. 109 which is the key one to the point we made in Committee.
The Minister has recited nearly all our objections in Committee and we are grateful to him for doing so. There is, however, one which he did not recite, or did not emphasise, namely, our objection to the duty laid on the Pharmaceutical Society in the Bill as it was first drafted so that the Society was responsible to nobody, and its inspectors who were responsible to nobody except the Society itself, were given not only the power, but the duty, to inspect shops which had nothing to do with Pharmaceuticals at all except in the widest sense, which sold only products on the general sale list, and which could not regard themselves as pharmacies. That was our objection. The Bill seemed to be giving a professional society more power than it was proper and right to give it.
The regulations proposed in Amendment No. 109 will leave the matter flexible, as the Minister said, and we have no objection to that. We see that this must be so, but again I urge the powers that be to do all they can to see that when the regulations are made they do

not allow, much less empower, the society's inspectors to enter premises on which, in our minds, and I think, in most people's minds, they have no right to be.

Mr. Dean: I should like to emphasise, as we did when discussing these points earlier, that we imply no criticism of the Pharmaceutical Society in what we have said. We feel that the Minister has largely met the point, that it would in some cases be put in a very difficult position where it might be regarded, and indeed would be, as an interested party.
I am glad that the Minister is providing for this flexibility. It is impossible to foresee at this stage just who the most appropriate enforcement authority should be. During the earlier part of the Minister's explanation I felt that he was suggesting that the food and drugs authorities would not be appropriate, but I am sure it will be borne in mind, when the regulations are eventually formulated, preceded by consultations, that there are many new aspects to this matter. Somebody has to learn new aspects which will be involved in the regulations, and I do not think it necessarily follows that the food and drugs authorities will be less able to do this and be less appropriate bodies than the society. We very much welcome the additional element of flexibility which has now been introduced.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: We are galloping through the Amendments at such a rate that I thought I had better get a word in before we dealt with them all.
I rise, first, to compliment, as others have done, the Minister on his new appointment, and to express my personal profound regret that I shall not again see him in the position which he has occupied with such great distinction for a long time.
I think that the Minister has handled this difficult subject extremely intelligently. There is a certain ambivalence in the attitude of the public to how much restriction there should be, and how much freedom. He has maintained a flexible attitude which will be found of great value in years to come. We are here dealing with a matter in which many changes will take place. I am glad that he has dealt with the matter in this flexible way. It will not create too rigid a system and will leave room


for the kind of changes that some hon. Members on both sides feel may be necessary as time goes on.

Mr. K. Robinson: With the leave of the House—I am very grateful for what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has said. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) may have misunderstood me. I indicated that the food and drugs authorities might be inappropriate for the inspection of herbalists' premises. I can assure the House that it is not our intention to make Regulations which would make the Pharmaceutical Society the inspecting authority of premises other than pharmacies, but because of the need for flexibility I am afraid that the House must accept this as an assurance of the Government's intention rather than its being written specifically into the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 102

ENFORCEMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment No. 117: In page 94, line 38, leave out from "(8)" to "and" in line 39 and insert:
any reference to the appropriate Minister were a reference to the Minister within the meaning of this section".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a Northern Ireland drafting Amendment. Although subsection (1) defines "the Minister" for the purposes of the Clause, it could be questioned whether the definition applies also, as intended, to the provisions of Clause 100 in so far as they are applied by Clause 102, with Amendments, to Northern Ireland. The words which it is proposed should be deleted—"the word 'appropriate' were omitted"—were therefore unsatisfactory. The substituted words remove the possible ambiguity.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 104

POWER TO INSPECT, TAKE SAMPLES AND SEIZE GOODS AND DOCUMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 121: In page 98, line 24, at end insert:
and, where by virtue of this subsection a person exercises any such right as is specified in subsection (4) of this section, he shall be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (6) of this section".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment rectifies an oversight in Clause 104. Subsection (4) enables an authorised officer of an enforcement authority to seize and obtain any substance or article which he has reasonable cause to believe to be one in relation to which or by means of which an offence has been committed, or any document that may be required as evidence in proceedings, and subsection (6) requires him to inform the person from whom it is seized or certain other persons of the fact.
As it stands, subsection (7) enables a person authorised by the licensing authority to exercise similar powers in connection with an applicant for a licence or certificate under Part II for the purpose of verifying statements in the application, but it does not require anyone to be informed, as under subsection (6), of a seizure and detention. The Amendment adds such a requirement.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "J"

APPLICATION OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE TO SUBSTANCE OR ARTICLE SEIZED UNDER S. 104

Lords Amendment No. 122: In page 98, line 32, at end insert new Clause "J":
J.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a person (in this section referred to as an 'authorised officer') seizes a substance or article (other than a document) in the exercise of such a right as is specified in subsection (4) of section 104 of this Act (including that subsection as applied by subsection (7) of that section).
(2) If any person who in accordance with subsection (6) of that section is entitled to be informed of the seizure so requests, either at the time of the seizure or at any subsequent time, not being later than twenty-one days after he is informed of the seizure,


then, subject to the next following subsection, the authorised officer shall either—
(a) set aside a sample of the substance or article seized, or
(b) treat that substance or article as a sample,
whichever he considers more appropriate having regard to the nature of that substance or article.
(3) An authorised officer shall not be required by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to set aside a sample, or to treat a substance or article as a sample, if the nature of the substance or article is such that it is. not reasonably practicable to do either of those things.
(4) Where in accordance with subsection (2) of this section an authorised officer sets aside a sample, or treats a substance or article as a sample, he shall divide it into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall supply one part of it to the person who made the request under subsection (2) of this section.
(5) Paragraphs 10, 11 and 11A and paragraphs 13 to 25 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a sample set aside, or a substance or article treated as a sample, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section as they have effect in relation to a sample obtained as mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule, but as if in those paragraphs—
(a) any reference to a sampling officer were a reference to an authorised officer;
(b) any reference to a sample included a reference to a substance or article treated as a sample;
(c) any reference to the preceding provisions of that Schedule were a reference to the preceding provisions of this section; and
(d) any reference to the relevant enforcement authority were a reference to the authority by whom the authorised officer is authorised for the purposes of section 104 of this Act,
and as if in paragraph 22(1) of that Schedule the reference to a substance or article obtained as mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule were a reference to a substance or article of which a sample has been set aside, or which has been treated as a sample, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Schedule 3 provides for the division of samples into three parts for their analysis or other examination and with regard to the use of certificates of analysis in proceedings. One part goes to the person on whom the sample has been obtained, so that he can have it independently tested, one is available for

the enforcement authority to have tested, and the third is kept as a reference sample in case of dispute.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) drew attention to the fact that there are no similar provisions where, under the special powers in subsection (4) of Clause 104, the enforcement officer seizes and detains the whole of a substance or articles which he has reasonable cause to believe to be one in relation to which or by means of which an offence has occurred.
We have considered this point and agree that it would be right to provide safeguards. The new Clause accordingly allows the person from whom a substance or article has been seized, within 21 days to request the enforcement officer to provide a sample or to treat the whole as a sample, and requires the enforcement officer to do so where this is reasonably practicable. When a sample is provided or the whole is treated as a sample the relevant provisions of Schedule 3 will apply.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "K"

ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES IN OTHER CASES

Lords Amendment No. 123: In page 99, line 24, at end insert new Clause "K".
K.—(1) A person who, not being a person authorised in that behalf by an enforcement authority, has purchased a medicinal product may submit a sample of it for analysis to the public analyst for the area in which the product was purchased or, if for the time being there is no public analyst for that area, then to the public analyst for some other area.
(2) Paragraphs 2 to 11B of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a person proposing to submit a sample in pursuance of the preceding subsection, as if in those paragraphs any reference to the sampling officer were a reference to that person.
(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a public analyst to whom a sample is submitted under subsection (1) of this section shall as soon as practicable analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed by some other person under his direction.
(4) The public analyst to whom a sample is submitted under subsection (1) of this section determines that for any reason an effective analysis of the sample cannot be performed by him or under his direction, he


shall send it to the public analyst for some other area, and (subject to the next following subsection) that other public analyst shall as soon as practicable analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed by some other person under his direction.
(5) A public analyst to whom a sample is submitted or sent under this section may demand payment in advance of the prescribed fee, and, if he demands such payment, he shall not be required to analyse the sample or cause it to be analysed until the fee has been paid.
(6) A public analyst who has analysed a sample or caused a sample to be analysed under this section shall issue a certificate specifying the result of the analysis to the person by whom the sample was originally submitted.
(7) Any certificate issued under subsection (6) of this section shall be in a form prescribed by the Ministers and shall be signed by the public analyst who issues the certificate.
(8) Paragraphs 19 to 21 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect in relation to a certificate issued under subsection (6) of this section as they have effect in relation to a certificate issued under paragraph 17 of that Schedule.
(9) Any regulations prescribing a fee for the purposes of this section shall be made by the Ministers.
(10) In this section 'public analyst' has the meaning assigned to it by paragraph (2) of Schedule 3 to this Act.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the new Clause is to fulfil an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) in Standing Committee. Section 92 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 provides for analysis by public analysts on payment of a fee of samples of food and drugs submitted by ordinary members of the public. The Food and Drugs Acts are to be repealed by Schedules 6 and 8 in their application to drugs but we believe that this provision should not be lost in the repeal The New Clause accordingly re-enacts the provision as part of the medicines legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "L"

LIABILITY TO FORFEITURE UNDER CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ACT 1952

Lords Amendment No. 124: In page 99, line 24, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "L":

L.—(1) For the purposes of section 44 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (forfeiture of goods improperly imported) any imported goods shall be deemed to be imported contrary to a restriction for the time being in force with respect to them under this Act if—

(a) they are goods falling within a class specified in an order made by the Ministers for the purposes of this subsection, and
(b) they are imported in such circumstances as are specified in that order.
(2) For the purposes of section 56 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (offences in relation to exportation of prohibited or restricted goods) any goods shall be deemed to be exported contrary to a restriction for the time being in force with respect to them under this Act if—

(a) they are goods falling within a class specified in an order made by the Ministers for the purposes of this subsection, and
(b) they are exported in such circumstances as are specified in that order.
(3) Any class of goods specified in an order under subsection (I) or subsection (2) of this section shall be so specified as to consist exclusively of goods appearing to the Ministers to be goods which are, or normally are, medicinal products or are, or normally are, animal feeding stuffs in which medicinal products have been incorporated.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Clause is to deal with three problems which arise in connection with enforcement at the port of import and export provisions in the Bill. The first of these is that under the Customs and Excise Act the customs officers' power of seizure can be exercised only when the goods in question are prohibited or restricted imports or exports, as the case may be. In many places in the Bill, however, the prohibition is against a person who imports or exports. Apart from the technical problem of applying the Customs and Excise Act to such places particular difficulty arises where goods arrive at the port and no one can be immediately identified as the person importing or exporting them.
The second problem arises from the nature of the definition of "medicinal product" which we have included in the Bill. This is not related directly to the nature or characteristics of the substance but depends on the purpose for which a preparation has been wholly or mainly manufactured or marketed. Such a definitions raises practical difficulties for


customs officers, and we think that enforcement at the port will be more effective if directed to a limited range of medicinal products and medicated animal feeding stuffs where it is of particular importance, rather than dissipated over the whole field.
This raises the third problem, namely, that it is not satisfactory for a public authority with a general enforcement duty to exercise this selectively in the light of purely administrative choice. From this it follows that if we are to ask the Board of Customs and Excise to enforce import and export provisions in the Bill selectively a statutory foundation for such selectivity is necessary. The new Clause accordingly provides for an order to be made specifying goods in respect of the export or import of which Customs are to have a duty of enforcement, and makes it clear that such goods when imported or exported in specified circumstances are to be in the category of prohibited exports or imports and therefore subject to Customs powers as to forfeiture.
The products which will be included in the orders will be those which give rise to special danger, such as "therapeutic substances" and products like veterinary antibiotics which present the greatest temptations to evasion of the prohibitions.

5
"M.—(1) For the purposes of the application of the provisions of sections 104, (Application of sampling procedure to substance or article seized under s. 104) and (Analysis of samples in other cases) of this Act in relation to animal feeding stuffs, regulations made by the Agriculture Ministers may provide that any of those provisions specified in the regulations shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be so specified.



(2) Regulations made by the Agriculture Ministers—


10
(a) may make provision as to the manner in which samples may be taken by virtue of the provisions of section 104 of this Act as modified by any regulations made under the preceding subsection, as to the manner in which samples may be set aside or substances or articles may be treated as samples, by virtue of the provisions of section (Application of sampling procedure to substance or article seized under s. 104) of this Act as so modified, or as to the manner in which samples may be submitted for analysis by virtue of the provisions of section (Analysis of samples in other cases) of this Act as so modified, and


15


20


25
(b) in relation to samples so taken, set aside or submitted for analysis, or substances or articles so treated as samples, may make provision (either in substitution for, or by way of modification of or addition to, any of the provisions of Schedule 3 to this Act) as to the manner in which such samples, substances and articles are to be dealt with.


30
(3) In relation to the incorporation in animal feeding stuffs of substances or articles of any description or class specified in an order made under this subsection by the Agriculture Ministers,

The existing general prohibitions in the Bill on export and import will, of course, remain and will be enforceable by the Ministers, either directly or, in the case of imports, through the possession offences provided for already in Clauses 39 and 60.

These arrangements in no way affect the requirement under Clause 7, that, before an imported product can be marketed in this country, a product licence must be obtained. This requirement is additional to the product licence requirement in respect of importing itself, although the same licence would generally serve for both purposes and would be in force in the same way as the similar provisions applicable to the marketing of products produced in this country. Amendment No. 137 is merely consequential, making Orders under the new Clause subject to annulment procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "M"

SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT AND SAMPLING PROVISIONS RELATING TO ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS.

Lords Amendment No. 125: In page 99, line 24, after the Amendment last inserted, insert New Clause "M":

35
so much of any licence granted or animal test certificate issued under Part II of this Act as imposes any restriction or requirement by reference to the quantity to be incorporated, or the proportion in which any substance or article may be incorporated, in any animal feeding stuff shall not be taken to be contravened in any particular case if the discrepancy does not exceed such limit as may be specified by the order in relation to substances or articles of that description or class.


40
(4) In section 105(2)(b) of this Act the reference to section 104 of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to the provisions of that section as modified by any regulations made under this section.


45
(5) The powers conferred by subsection (2) of this section shall be exercisable in addition to any power exercisable by virtue of paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to this Act."

Read a Second Time.

Mr. Mackie: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 27, at end insert:
(2A) For the purposes of proceedings for such offences under this Act relating to animal feeding stuffs as may be prescribed by regulations made under subsection (2) of this section, the regulations may—

(a) prescribe a method of analysis to be used in analysing samples of animal feeding stuffs in order to determine what quantity or proportion (if any) of a substance or article of a description or class specified in the regulations has been incorporated in them, and
(b) provide that, on production in the proceedings of such evidence as may be so prescribed of the results of an analysis of a sample performed by the method so prescribed, evidence of the results of any analysis of any part of the sample performed by any other method shall not be admissible in those proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be appropriate to discuss, at the same time, the second Government Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 38, at end insert:
(3A) Where a label or mark on a container or package containing any animal feeding stuff, or a leaflet supplied or to be supplied with any animal feeding stuff, specifies a quantity or proportion of a medicinal product of a particular description as being incorporated in the animal feeding stuff, section 83(2) of this Act shall not be taken to be contravened by reason only that the quantity or proportion actually incorporated in the animal feeding stuff is greater or less than that so specified, if the discrepancy does not exceed such limit as the Agriculture Ministers may by order specify in relation to medicinal products of that description, or in relation to a class of medicinal products which includes medicinal products of that description;
and Lords Amendment No. 138, in page 106, line 20, after "98" insert:
(Special enforcement and sampling provisions relating to animal feeding stuffs) (3)",

and the Government Amendment to that Lords Amendment, in line 2, leave out "(3)"

Mr. Mackie: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary promised in Committee that he would put down an Amendment to make it possible to deal with the special problems associated with the sampling of medicated animal feeding stuffs. This Clause does that by enabling agricultural Ministers to make appropriate Regulations modifying the normal provisions in the Bill. It has been thought desirable to be able to modify in this way, because some of the modifications required will be complex and technical and it may also be necessary to change them from time to time.
With the Amendments to the Lords' Amendment which are proposed, it will also enable the Ministers to include in those Regulations methods of analysis by determining the quantity or proportion of particular substances or articles in samples of animal feeding stuffs for the purpose of offences under the Bill prescribed in the Regulations. In addition, the Regulations may provide that, in any proceedings, the results of any other methods of analysis will not be admissible, but evidence of the results of the prescribed methods are produced.
The agricultural Ministers may make Orders as to tolerances and limits of variations. These arrangements, of course, are similar to those applying to feeding stuffs under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926. Lords' Amendment No. 138 to Clause 116 and the Amendment proposed to it are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 110

WARRANTY AS DEFENCE

Lords Amendment No. 126: In page 102, line 31, after second "the" insert "name or".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment rectifies an omission in Clause 110. Since line 29 refers both to a "name" and to a "description", line 31 Mould do the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords' Amendment No. 127: In page 102, line 35, after "this" insert "and the next following".

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 128, new Clause "N" (Offences in relation to warranties and certificates of analysis).

Mr. Robinson: New Clause "N" reproduces the effect of Section 116 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, so far as it relates to warranties and certificates of analysis relating to drugs. The Clause makes it an offence to misapply a warranty or certificate or give a false warranty or certificate. Amendment No. 127 anticipates the new Clause by applying the Scottish interpretation provision in Clause 110(7) to the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

PRESUMPTIONS

Lords' Amendment No. 129: In page 104, line 25, at beginning insert:
(1) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Act for an offence consisting of—

(a) offering any animal feeding stuff for sale in contravention of section 36(1) of this Act, or
(b) offering a medicinal product for sale by retail in contravention of section 45 or section 46 of this Act, or

(c) offering a medicinal product for sale in contravention of section 56(b) of this Act,
where it is proved that the animal feeding stuff or medicinal product in question was found on a vehicle from which animal feeding stuffs or medicinal products are sold, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the person in charge of the vehicle offered that animal feeding stuff or medicinal product for sale, and, in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection, that he offered it for sale by retail.

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would, I think, be convenient to discuss at the same time Lords' Amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 132.

Mr. Robinson: These four Amendments strengthen this Clause by adding a presumption about medicinal products and medicated animal feeding stuffs found in mobile shops and by extending to manufacturers and wholesalers the existing presumption in Clause 113 as to possession for sale or supply which is at present limited to retailers. The Clause also substitutes a more appropriate provision to deal with the possession of leaflets of the package insert type which are supplied with medicinal products and not by themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 116

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Lords Amendment No. 136: In page 106, line 20, leave out "97".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 139.

Mr. Snow: These two Amendments arise because an Amendment on Report corrected Clause 97. It was originally correct to refer to Clause 97 by itself, but, on Report in this House, the Clause was amended by the introduction of subsection (3) which made Orders under Clause 97(1)(b) subject to affirmative


Resolution. This is the correcting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 138: In page 106, line 20, after "98" insert:
(Special enforcement and sampling provisions relating to animal feeding stuffs) (3)

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to: In line 2 leave out '(3)'.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 117

MEANING OF "MEDICINAL PRODUCT" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS

Lords Amendment No. 140: In page 107, line 15, at beginning insert "use".

Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, I suggest, to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 142, 145 and 150.

Mr. Robinson: The effect of the first three of these Amendments, which were foreshadowed on Report by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, is to put manufactured herbal ingredients not already covered by Clause 117(l)(b) in the same position as manufactured ingredients for use in pharmacies or hospitals or by practitioners.
Such ingredients, in contrast to those used wholly or mainly by pharmaceutical manufacturers, which would, of course, be subject to control only in special circumstances where an Order is made under Clause 97(1)(a), are placed by the Bill in the category of "medicinal product", because pharmacists and

practitioners would normally rely on the correcting manufacturer to ensure the quality of any product marketed for use in professional practice as an ingredient for making up a medicine. It is reasonable, therefore, to require that the semi-finished product supplied for this purpose should be subject to licensing in the same way as the finished product, packed and put up ready for administration.
The same applies to bulk extracts, tinctures and other ingredients purchased by herbalists for use in extemporaneous preparation of herbal remedies, and the organisations representing herbal interests with whom discussions have taken place accept the desirability of bringing them under licensing control. It is particularly important in the case of some bulk preparations because of their potency and because of the breadth of the exemptions for extemporaneous dispensing which are given to any person who is resorted to by an individual for herbal treatment.
Amendment No. 150 implements a promise of my hon. Friend on Report to consider whether provision could be made for ointment bases like lanoline and petroleum jelly and other non-herbal excipients traditionaly used by herbalists.
As the Bill is drafted, any medicinal product containing a substance other than water, which is not of herbal origin is outside the definition of "herbal remedy" and the special exemptions for herbal remedies would accordingly not apply. This Amendment widens the definition by allowing the inclusion of any inert non-herbal substances and, therefore, I think, fully meets the point about excipients which was made on behalf of the herbalists.

Mr. Dean: After a good deal of discussion and various Amendments at different stages of the Bill, the Minister has a happy balance between the reasonable freedom of the herbalists to pursue their side of medicine and the controls which I accept to be desirable in retard to the manufactured herbal ingredients of which he spoke.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "O"

MEANING OF "WHOLESALE DEALING" "RETAIL SALE" AND RELATED EX PRESSIONS

Lords Amendment No. 147: In page 109, line 21, at end insert new Clause ''O":
O.—(1) In this Act any reference to selling anything by way of wholesale dealing is a reference to selling it to a person as being a person who buys it for one or more of the purposes specified in subsection (2) of this section, except that it does not include arty such sale by the person who manufactured it.
(2) The purposes referred to in the preceding subsection, in relation to a person to whom anything is sold, are the purposes of—

(a) selling or supplying it, or
(b) administering it or causing it to be administered to one or more human beings,
in the course of a business carried on by that person.
(3) In this Act any reference to selling by retail, or to retail sale, is a reference to selling a substance or article to a person as being a person who buys it otherwise than for a purpose specified in subsection (2) of this section.
(4) In this Act any references to supplying anything in circumstances corresponding to retail sale is a reference to supplying it, otherwise than by way of sale, to a person as being a person who receives it for a purpose other than that of—

(a) selling or supplying it, or
(b) administering it or causing it to be administered to one or more human beings,
in the course of a business carried on by that person.
(5) For the purposes of this section the provision of services by or on behalf of the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State or the Ministry of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland under the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 or the Health Services Acts (Northern Ireland) 1948 to 1967 shall be treated as the carrying on of a business by that Minister, the Secretary of State or that Ministry, as the case may be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, at the same time, to take Lords Amendment No. 152.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The definitions of "wholesale" and "retail" in Clause 118(3) of the Bill as drafted have been found to be defective in not covering the sale to a person who purchases a medicinal product with the

object of supplying it otherwise than by way of sale. The new Clause remedies that.
Furthermore, we have decided that it is better to use the exemption powers already existing in Clauses 15 and 30 to allow practitioners to buy both from wholesalers and from retailers the products used in their professional practice, without altering the status under the Bill of their suppliers as wholesalers or retailers. The new Clause accordingly omits the provisions in the earlier definitions which made a sale to a practitioner neither wholesale nor retail.
Amendment 152 deletes Clause 118(3) which the new Clause is designed to replace and it is, therefore, purely consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 120

SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment 155: In page 115, line 29, at end insert:
( ) Section 38 of the Interpretation Act 1889 shall have the like operation in relation to any repeal by this Act of an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as it has in relation to the repeal of an enactment of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a simple Amendment which applies to Northern Ireland. The Amendment is required to attract the provisions of Section 38 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which deals with the effect of repeals in future Acts of Parliament except where a contrary intention is expressed. The Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 does not apply to Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and a reference in an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom does not prima facie include a reference to an Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland. It is therefore necessary to apply Section 38 of the Interpretation Act, 1889 to the repeals effected by Schedule 8 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

SAMPLING

Lords Amendment 167: In page 122, line 44, at end insert:
11A. Section 114 of this Act shall have effect in relation to supplying any part of a sample in pursuance of the preceding paragraphs as it has effect in relation to the service of a document.
11 B. If, after reasonable inquiry the sampling officer is unable to ascertain the name of a person to whom, or the address at which, a part of a sample ought to be supplied in pursuance of the preceding paragraphs, he may retain that part of the sample instead of supplying it.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new paragraph 11A fills a small gap in the provisions of the Bill. Under paragraphs 3 to 8 of Schedule 3, the sampling officer is under an obligation, after dividing a sample, to supply one part to the person who might broadly be regarded as the owner of the bulk from which the sample was taken. Personal delivery may, however, often not be practicable and the new paragraph applies to supply of a part of a sample the provisions of Clause 114, which permits the service of documents by post.
The new paragraph 11B deals with a related point. The part of a sample requiring to be supplied to a person cannot reasonably be sent to him if his name or address is unknown. This paragraph accordingly allows the sampling officer to retain the part-sample if, after reasonable inquiry, he is unable to ascertain the person's name or address. This provision will thus enable the sampling procedure to be used and the submission for analysis to be made even when the relevant person's name and address are unknown.

"section (Supplementary provisions as to clinical trials and medicianal tests on animals), section (Supplementary provisions as to incorporation of substances and articles in animal feeding stuffs) and section 50(3)"

Read a Second time.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, leave out second "and" and insert "or".
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 enables the appropriate Northern Ireland Minister or

Both provisions parallel provisions in paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 to the Food and Drugs Act 1955.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 168: In page 123, line 37, leave out from "Schedule" to "and" in line 39 and insert:
(a) if they relate exclusively to the examination or analysis of veterinary drugs and are made by an enforcement authority in England and Wales other than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall be arrangements approved by that Minister;
(b) if in any other case they are made by an enforcement authority in England and Wales other than the Minister of Health, shall be arrangements approved by the Minister of Health;
(c) if they are made by an enforcement authority in Scotland other than the Secretary of State, shall be arrangements approved by the Secretary of State".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 as it stands requires the approval of "the appropriate Minister" to any arrangements made by an enforcement authority for examination or analysis by someone other than a public analyst. The expression "the appropriate Minister" is, however, not defined. This Amendment spells out which Minister's approval is required.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4

PROVISIONS RELATING TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment No. 176: In page 127, line 49, after "15(3)" insert:

Ministers to make separate regulations and orders in relation to Northern Ireland. However, in the Bill as drafted there is a specific exemption to that—for the affirmative Resolution orders under Clause 15(3), orders which can take away or modify licensing exemptions which are substantive provisions in the Bill.

The Amendments Nos. 24—subsection (10) of the new Clause E—55—subsection (6) of the new Clause F—and 84, which we have just accepted, have all introduced into the Bill new order-making powers of the same character as that in Clause 15(3), and it is appropriate, therefore, that such orders should be excluded also from the Northern Ireland Ministers' power to make separate provisions. That is the purpose of Lords Amendment No. 176.

The Government Amendment corrects a point of syntax. Its intention, by substituting "or" for "and", is to make it quite clear that it is the individual provisions which are referred to in Lords Amendment No. 176 and not the generality of those provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS OF PARLIAMENT OF UNITED KINGDOM

Lords Amendment No. 177: In page 129, line 7, at end insert:

'The Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 (c. 25)
. In section 17(2), for the words from 'those poisons' to 'authorised seller of poisons', in each place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words ' those substances which, where they are non-medicinal poisons, are by virtue and subject to the provisions of this Act prohibited from being sold except by a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business'.
. In section 18, subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:—

'(a) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part I of the Poisons List unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business; and
(ii) the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy; and
(iii) the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a pharmacist;
(b) for a person to sell any non-medicinal poison which is a substance included in Part II of the Poisons List unless—

(i) he is a person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business and the sale is effected on premises which are a registered pharmacy; or
(ii) his name is entered in a local authority's list in respect of the premises on which the poison is sold',


and in paragraph (c), for the words 'poison, whether' there shall be substituted the words 'non-medicinal poison, whether it is a substance'; and in subsection (2), for the word 'poison', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words 'non-medicinal poison which is a substance'.
. In section 21, in subsection (1), for the words from 'who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I' to 'such poisons on those premises', there shall be substituted the words 'as being persons entitled, on premises in respect of which their names are entered in the list, to sell non-medicinal poisons which are substances included in Part II of the Poisons List, and shall enter in the list the name of any person who, having premises in the area of the authority, makes an application to the local authority in the form prescribed by rules to have his name entered in the list in respect of those premises'; and in subsection (3), for the words from 'on which' to 'the said Part II' there shall be substituted the words 'in respect of which the name of any person is entered in the list'.
. In section 22, before the word 'poison' there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
. In section 23, in subsections (1) and (2), before the word 'poisons' in each place where it occurs (except where the reference is to the 'Poisons Board' or 'the Poisons List ') there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
. In section 24, in subsection (2), before the word 'poison' there shall be inserted the word 'non-medicinal'.
. In section 25, in subsection (1), for the words 'registered pharamacists and authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'pharmacists and persons carrying on a retail pharmacy business'; in subsection (4), for the words 'registered pharmacists and authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words 'pharmacists and persons carrying on a retail pharmacy business', for the words 'premises which are on the register of premises' there shall be substituted the words 'registered pharmacy', and for the word 'poisons', in the second and fourth places where it occurs, there shall he substituted the word 'substances'; in subsection (5), after the word 'steps' there shall be inserted '(a)', for the words authorised sellers of poisons' there shall be substituted the words persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business', for the words 'poisons', in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'substances', and for the words 'for that purpose' there shall be substituted the words—
'(b) to secure compliance with those provisions and rules by persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business, in so far as that business is carried on at premises which are not a registered pharmacy,
and for those purposes '; and in subsection (6), for the word 'poisons', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'substances'.


. In section 29, for the definition of 'pharmacist' there shall be substituted the following—
'"person lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business" shall be construed in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968;
pharmacist" has the meaning assigned to it in relation to Great Britain by section 118(1) of the Medicines Act 1968'.
after the definition of registered dentist' there shall be inserted the words '"registered pharmacy" has the meaning assigned to it by section 67 of the Medicines Act 1968, "retail pharmacy business" has the meaning assigned to it by section 118(1) of that Act', and at the end of section 29 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(2) In this Act "non-medicinal poison" means a substance which is for the time being included in Part I or Part II of the Poisons List and is neither—

(a) a medicinal product as defined by section 117 of the Medicines Act 1968, nor
(b) a substance in relation to which, by virtue of an order under section 96 or section 97 of that Act for the time being in force (and whether in the case of an order under section 96 of that Act it is referred to in the order as a substance or as an article), the provisions of sections 44 to 47 and sections 62 to 70 of that Act (whether subject to exceptions and modifications or not and with or without other provisions of that Act) have effect as they have effect in relation to medicinal products as so defined.'

The Cancer Act 1939 (c. 13)

. In section 4, in subsection (4)(a)(v), for the words 'authorised sellers of poisons' there shall he substituted the words 'persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968'."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amenments Nos. 178, 179, 181, 182, 183 and 186.

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of Amendments 177, 181 and 182 is, broadly, to restrict to non-medical poisons the control-of-sale provisions in Parts II and III of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, to repeal the provisions of that Act relating to the conditions that have to be satisfied to be an "authorised seller of poisons" and to secure that persons who, under the Medicines Bill, are lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business shall be authorised, in relation to non-medicinal poisons, to do everything under the Pharmacy

and Poisons Act, 1933, which authorised sellers of poisons can do.
The result is to avoid duplicate registration of pharmacy premises under two Statutes, the conditions being almost identical, and to take medicines containing "poisons" outside the ambit of the poisons legislation, which at present governs them.
The Pharmaceutical Society has agreed that it is unnecessary to preserve, in relation to non-medicinal poisons, the special provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941, which relate to the sale by persons with a retail pharmacy business of certain poisons at premises other than registered pharmacy premises. Such non-pharmacy premises will in future have to be entered in the local authority's list of premises where non-medicinal poisons may be sold.
The purpose of the remaining Amendments is to substitute, in various statutes, a reference to
persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business
in accordance with Clause 62 of the Bill for "authorised sellers of poisons", and to make a number of minor consequential amendments in the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964 and in Section II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, substituting references to the Medicines Bill for references to corresponding provisions in various other statutes. In view of the corresponding provisions appearing in Part III and Clause 88 of the Medicines Bill, it has now been found possible to repeal the whole of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act 1941.

Question Put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 180: In page 129, line 28, at end insert:

"The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)

. In section 2, in subsection (2), after the word 'section ' there shall be inserted '(a)', and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(b) where by virtue of any provision made under Part V of the Medicines Act 1968 (or made under any provisions of the said Part V as applied by an order made under section 96 or section 97 of that Act) anything which, in accordance with this Act, constitutes the application


of a trade description to goods is subject to any requirements or restrictions imposed by that provision, any particular description specified in that provision, when applied to goods in circumstances to which those requirements or restrictions arc applicable, shall be deemed not to be a trade description'.

. In section 22, in subsection (2), after the words 'the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland) 1958' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Medicines Act 1968'; in paragraph (b) the word 'and', where it occurs at the end of that paragraph, shall be omitted: and at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words and
(d) in relation to the said Act of 1968, so much of Schedule 3 to that Act as is applicable to the circumstances in which the sample was procured',
and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words or paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the said Act of 1968'."

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the correction which appears on the separate paper, in line 2, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsection (5)".

Mr. Snow: The first part of this Amendment is concerned with the case where there is a requirement or restriction under Part V of the Medicines Bill as to the use of a specified description. The Amendment has the effect of excluding from the operation of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 such a description when used as prescribed, so that compliance with the requirement or restriction under the Medicines Bill will not involve an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act.
The second part of the Amendment, which relates to section 22 of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, secures that where proceedings are being taken under that Act in relation to goods, in circumstances where proceedings could also have been taken under the Bill, evidence based on a sample taken for analysis is not to be admissible unless the sampling procedures of Schedule 3 of the Bill have been complied with.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6

ENACTMENTS OF PARLIAMENT OF UNITED KINGDOM REPEALED

Lords Amendment No. 184: In page 130, column 3, line 33, at end insert:




"In section 114(4), the words from 'the authority concerned' to 'in any other case'."

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendment No. 185.

Mr. Snow: These Amendments have the effect of removing certain additional references to drugs in the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which were previously overlooked. This is to fulfil our intention of removing from that Act the provisions relating to drugs and references to drugs, other than in the expression "food and drugs authority" and in the interpretation Section 135, in which one reference must be retained for interpretation of certain other provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS OF PARLIAMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment No. 187: In page 131, line 8, leave out from "words" to "for" in line 13 and insert:
a retail pharmacy business is carried on',".

Mr. Snow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 188 to 202, being the remaining Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Snow: In Northern Ireland, except in three respects, the poisons law has been similar to that in Great Britain. First, the powers of enforcement have rested with the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland and not the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, which is a comparatively small


body. Secondly, the alternative conditions of registration provided for by Section 1 of the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941, have not operated in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, a few druggists, for whom provision is made in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, are still licensed to keep open shop to retail poisons which are not on "prescription only".
Accordingly, the Amendments to the Northern Ireland poisons law set out in Schedules 7 and 8 to the Bill correspond to those for Great Britain, set out in Schedules 5 and 6, and have the purpose of maintaining corresponding laws for non-medicinal poisons. Medicinal substances will, of course, be dealt with by the Bill on a United Kingdom basis.
By the various definitions inserted by Amendments Nos. 189, 192 and 196, an economy in wording can be achieved as well as an added clarity.
Amendment No. 194 sets out, those persons who may lawfully sell non-medicinal poisons and, those persons entitled to apply to a local authority to have their names entered in the list of persons who may sell Part II non-medicinal poisons at the premises entered in the register.
The remainder of the Amendments to the Northern Ireland Pharmacy and Poisons Acts of 1925, 1945 and 1955 are consequential. Amendment No. 198 deletes an Amendment of Section 70(1) of the Food and Drugs Act (Northern Ireland), 1958, which on further consideration, is not considered to be necessary as the definition of the word "drug" in that Act does not require to be linked with the definition of "medicinal product" contained in the Bill.
The Schedule 8 Amendments are consequential on those made in Schedule 7.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 9

MODIFICATION OF DUTY OF REGISTRAR TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR INVESTI GATION

Lords Amendments No. 1: In page 10, line 7, leave out "is" and insert "has been".

2.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Dell: These are essentially drafting Amendments. Clause 9(1) gives the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements a discretion not to refer dead or abandoned restrictive agreements to the Restrictive Practices Court. It was always the intention that this discretion should apply to agreements which became dead or were abandoned before, as well as those which became so after, the coming into force of the Measure. Indeed, we believe that the Clause as drafted secures this result, but it has been suggested that the use of the word "is" in lines 7 and 8 of page 10 creates a doubt as to whether the power applies to agreements dead or abandoned before the coming into force of the Measure. To remove any possibility of doubt, the Amendments replace the word "is" by the words "has been".

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: In every stage of our consideration of the Bill it has been the wish of both sides that uncertainty should be reduced to a minimum, and that people who wondered whether they should register agreements, or whether action might be taken at a future date on agreements that had been registered, should be given a clear indication of where they stood. If the Minister says that the Amendment will help to clear up a slight possible remainder of doubt, the House will be only too pleased to see it incorporated in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause "A"

WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 11, line 12, at end insert new Clause "A":
A.—(1) Subsection (6) of section 6 of the Act of 1956 (which relates to agreements made by trade associations) shall not apply to any industrial and provident society approved by the Board of Trade for the purposes of this


section; and an industrial and provident society so approved shall he treated as not being a trade association for the purposes of subsections (3) and (5) of section 8 (excepted agreements) of the Act of 1956.
(2) The Board of Trade may, if they think tit, approve for the purposes of this section any industrial and provident society which, in the opinion of the Board, satisfies the following conditions namely—

(a) that it carries on business in the production or supply of goods or in the application to goods of any process of manufacture; and
(b) that its shares are wholly or mainly held by industrial and provident societies, being retail societies or societies whose share; are wholly or mainly held by retail societies.
(3) The power of approval conferred by subsection (2) of this section shall not be exercisable after the end of the relevant period, that is to say—

(a) in the case of a society which immediately before the commencement of this Act is registered or deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or under the corresponding law in Northern Ireland, the period of three months beginning with the commencement of this Act;
(b) in the case of a society which is so registered after the commencement of this Act, the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is so registered.
(4) Where an agreement made before the commencement of this Act by an industrial and provident society is subject to registration under Part I of the Act of 1956 but would not hate been subject to registration there-under if subsection (6) of section 6 of the Act of 1956 had not been enacted and the society had at all times fallen to be treated as not being a trade association for the purposes of subsections (3) and (5) of section 8 of that Act, the agreement shall cease to be subject to registration under the said Part I if that society is approved by the Board of Trade for the purposes of this section.
(5) In this section—
'industrial and provident society' means a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or under the corresponding law in Northern Ireland;
'retail society' means a society which carries on business in the sale by retail of goods for the domestic or personal use of individuals dealing with the society, or in the provision of services for such individuals;
'the corresponding law in Northern Ireland' means the law for the time being in force in Northern Ireland for purposes corresponding to those of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.

Mr. Dell: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis), in line 10 to leave out 'in the opinion of the Board'.

Mr. Dell: This rather lengthy and complicated Clause is intended to deal with a relatively small point.
After the Bill had left the Commons the attention of the Board of Trade was drawn to the fact that the definition of a trade association in Section 6(8) of the 1956 Act includes co-operative societies, such as the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, which are registered as industrial and provident societies. We have given careful consideration to representations about the difficulties alleged to stem from this situation.
We think it anomalous that the ordinary, everyday trading transactions of a body such as the C.W.S. should be required to be registered. This situation arises as a result of the wording employed in Sections 6(6), 8(3) and 8(5) of the 1956 Act. Section 6(6) says in effect that if a trade association enters into an agreement under which it accepts a restriction, all the members of the trade association are to be regarded as accepting that restriction. This is what I might term a statutory fiction, and its effects in relation to a body such as the C.W.S. are rather surprising. For example, if the C.W.S. enters into any exclusive buying agreement under which it agrees to buy all its corn flakes, detergent or jam from a particular supplier, the agreement is registrable, because the statutory fiction of Section 6(6) requires one to regard all the retail co-operative societies in England and Wales that are members of the C.W.S. as parties to the agreement, and as accepting the exclusive buying commitment. As a result the agreement becomes registrable, because two or more persons are to be regarded as accepting restrictions under it.
The effect of the Amendment is to permit a body like the C.W.S. to be approved, and where it is approved to relieve it from the effects of Section 6(6). The Clause also makes similar provision


in relation to Sections 8(3) and 8(5) of the 1956 Act. Section 8(3) provides an exemption for ordinary commercial exclusive selling contracts. The exemption is not available where either of the parties is a trade association. The short effect of the new Clause is to make the exemption provided by section 8(3) available in cases where one or both of the parties is a society approved under the new Clause, notwithstanding that the party is a trade association.
The new Clause operates similarly in relation to Section 8(5) of the 1956 Act, which exempts knowhow agreements and contains a similar qualification. It does not affect the position of trade association recommendations to which Section 6(7) of the Act applies.
Two features of the new Clause call for some further explanation. First, the exemption is only available to societies approved by the Board of Trade. The reason for this is that the Board wants to guard against the possibility that ordinary commercial trade associations might get themselves registered as industrial and provident societies so as to circumvent the provisions of the 1956 Act. I hope that that explanation may help to deal with the point of doubt that appears to have existed in the minds of the hon. Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) and led them to put down the Amendment which was not selected.
Second, subsection (4) of the new Clause exempts agreements made before the commencement of this Act. We understand that a number of ordinary commercial arrangements have been made in good faith without the parties realising that they were technically registrable because of the provisions of the 1956 Act relating to trade associations. We think the parties might reasonably he excused from registering these agreements. To sum up, what we are attempting to do is to put the C.W.S., in its capacity as manufacturer and wholesaler, in the same position as any other ordinary manufacturer or wholesaler.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I was going to say that the Bill has proved to be something of a Pandora's box as it has received its

detailed scrutiny. But perhaps "Pandora's box" is not the right simile, because the things that flew out of it were all unwelcome, whereas some of the unexpected things that have arisen from our discussion of the Bill have been welcome, and have been matters that should have been dealt with.
As the Minister said, the Clause is somewhat complicated to understand and to deal with briefly. Whilst he says that it deals with a simple point—and I am prepared to accept that after listening to him, I am glad that the discussion is limited this afternoon to those of us who have toiled through the full provisions of the Bill.
It is worth making clear that the object of the Clause is not to relieve the wholesale co-operative societies of an obligation which would be newly imposed on them under the Bill. The obligation is not new, but arises from the terms of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The wholesale co-operative societies have never discharged that legal obligation under the Act, because apparently they did not realise that it imposed any such obligation. It is not surprising that they did not realise the position, because apparently no one else appreciated it over a period of about 11 years, nor was it appreciated what the Bill would do until it was reaching a very late stage of its consideration. If the new Clause were not incorporated the wholesale cooperative societies would be exposed to consequences which could not have arisen under the 1956 Act, namely, to action by a person who might be affected, as set out in Clause 7.
The need for the new Clause shows what can now result from the sharpening in the Bill of the provisions about registrable agreements which have not been registered hitherto. It shows that we were correct on our side of the Committee when we said that the administrative provisions should be carefully examined and viewed against a likely substantial number of new registrations. It was perhaps this type of situation that we had in mind when making those comments.
One can readily appreciate the wholesale co-operative societies feeling that without the Amendment they would be subject to a scrutiny of their conduct of their trading activities to which no other similar trading arrangements would be


exposed. That is the gist of the Minister's reasons for bringing forward the new Clause. He said that the societies would have needed to register the agreements, and as they would be trading agreements this would mean not only the fact that they had entered into exclusive trading agreements of this sort but the disclosure of the full details to their commercial competitors of matters such as prices and quantities. This reinforces the point about the invidious position in which they would have found themselves.
The Minister has not suggested that there are any other bodies that would find themselves in the same position as the wholesale co-operative societies.
2.30 p.m.
This should not be taken necessarily to mean that there are none. During our discussion of this Bill various surprising matters have come to light, and it is possible that we might find that there were other bodies in an exactly parallel situation as to the effects of the Bill upon them. I appreciate the Minister's reason for making exemption available only to societies approved by the Board of Trade, because we on this side would not wish the provisions of the Bill to be weakened in directions which have not been foreseen. I hope that if the Board of Trade finds that there are, in future, other bodies suffering some disability such as the wholesale co-operative societies were, outside the underlying intention of the legislation, action will be taken at the first opportunity to relieve them too.
Subsection (2,b) of the new Clause is intentionaly very limiting in its effects. I would hope that the Minister can assure us that the Board of Trade, equally, will not hesitate to take action if it is found that the unforeseen arises in another direction, and as a result of any approval given by the Board of Trade under this Clause, any agreements which it was the intention of this Bill should be registrable, are escaping attention. I hope that if consequences are frustrating the Bill's intentions, the Minister will at a suitable opportunity undertake corrective action.
The Minister has referred to the retrospective element, and although one tends to be hesitant about such provisions, it seems that if the Clause is correctly drafted, it achieves the specific purpose and the retrospective provisions are rational, and not open to objections. The

Minister referred to the words in the new Clause which were the subject of a somewhat belated Amendment. These words wind up the Bill on a note about which we do not feel happy. That is the tendency for the Board of Trade to rely on administrative discretion to what is perhaps too great a degree.
The Minister has made clear there is the reservation that the Board of Trade may, if it thinks fit, approve under this Clause any industrial provident society. We do not quarrel with that. As I understand him, this is in order to see that the Bill so fulfils its purpose and that the escape Clause shall not permit more escapes than anyone would wish to see. The words "in the opinion of the Board" come before what appear to be two very tightly drafted subsections—(a) and (b). It seems that this is carrying caution to excess and stems from the Board of Trade's wish to see that on all occasions its own administrative Ministerial decision runs, and there is no risk, or only a very minimal risk, under the law, of it being challenged in the courts.
Perhaps the Minister can put our minds at rest on this and say that it carries some other impllication and it is essentially a phrase to make the powers covered by the phrase, "if they think fit" fully operative. We have had, in this Clause, and elsewhere a great reliance on Ministerial discretion. I would be happier if, in considering this Clause, there had been no examples of it. I accept the reasons for the general approach on these lines in the Clause, and we do not wish to challenge the reasonableness of it.
At the end of a succession of changes proposed in the spirit of the examination of this Bill, and in accordance with all the events as they have developed in a Bill of this kind which has been on the stocks for two or three years, under to some extent, the guidance of both parties, and has been scrutinised by the Department, it is fitting that there should still be an unforeseen situation at this late stage in its examination.

Mr. Dell: With the leave of the House, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point regarding the definition of the discretion in the Lords Amendment and it is right that I should reply to it. As he says, the provisions of the new Clause as to approval by the Board of Trade confer


two distinct powers upon the Board. In the first place, the Board "may if they think fit" approve a society for the purposes of the new Clause. Secondly, it is for the Board to decide whether a society satisfies the requirements set out in subsection (2)(a) and (b). As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the first element of discretion, but it is the second about which he is asking.
It may be argued that it is wrong to make the Board the judge of whether a society is eligible for approval under (2)(a) and (b). In fact, if the conditions as to eligibility were stated objectively, it would probably make little practical difference. The Board intends to exercise this power very sparingly and for a very limited purpose. The possibility that its decision that a body was eligible for approval could be successfully challenged is, in the circumstances, remote. On balance, therefore, it seems better to leave this discretion to the Board of Trade. This will make for speed and certainty which are among the reasons for introducing the approval procedure. It should be remembered that this provision does not confer arbitrary powers upon the Board which has to take its decision whether a society is eligible or not honestly and reasonably. If it fails to do this it would be open to challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 16, line 10, after
order" insert "made".

Mr. Dell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Lines 9 and 10 of Schedule 3 misquote the words in the 1956 Act which are to be repealed. The misquotation consists of the omission of the word "made". The object of this Amendment is to rectify the omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL BUILDING (CORNWALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.

2.37 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I am extremely glad to be able to raise the question of the cuts in the Cornish school building programme so soon after the Summer Recess. I do so I know with the full support of my Cornish colleagues, irrespective of their party allegiance. I apologise at the outset of this short speech if I mention places in their constituencies, because the case I want to make is one for the whole of Cornwall, and not just for my own constituency of North Cornwall.
I apologise, too, for not dealing with every town which has educational difficulties. I want to deal with those where the difficulties seem to be exceptional. My reason for raising this at this stage is because of the utmost urgency about getting a decision. Upon the Minister's reply my Cornish colleagues and I will base our campaign for the future.
I want to state soberly, and I hope without too much drama, the situation as we see it and to give some of the facts. I hope that I will be allowed to issue one small warning to the Minister. The sort of reply I would like to hear is not the sort of reply that the County Council had from her Department in a letter written by one of her civil servants on 11th June of this year. In reply to a detailed account of the crisis put forward by the County Council, in both the schools and further education programme, the Department mentioned just two further education projects and patted itself on the back for those. It did not mention the schools at all. I thought that Cornwall's response to that letter was a marvel of moderation. I should have been tempted to physical violence.
I shall limit myself to the major programmes, those above £20,000, and start by sketching the background to the crisis facing us. The Department's survey of the state of the nation's schools in 1962 showed clearly that Cornwall already then had a far higher than average quantity of old primary schools and schools lacking modern amenties. There are 271


primary schools in the county. Only 28 of these have been built since the war. Four of these new primary schools were built out of allocations for minor capital works, and this was done at the expense of other very essential projects. At the present rate of progress it will take 199 years before all the pre-war primary schools in Cornwall can be replaced.
I admit immediately that the secondary school situation is not as bad as the primary school situation, but it is bad enough. Twenty-three of our 50 secondary schools have been completely, or almost completely, built since the war. Twenty of these were done as part of the rural reorganisation programme.
Taking secondary and primary schools together, 51 new schools have been completed in Cornwall since the war. These have provided 15,700 new school places. However, since the war the number of children in the schools has increased by only 60 less than that 15.700. So new building has only just kept pace with the increased school population.
Nearly 70 per cent. of school children in Cornwall are in pre-war schools. These have been patched, adapted and mended to the point where further work of this nature is totally uneconomic.
What about the future of the primary schools? In the next five years the primary school population in Cornwall will increase by 2,500. Very substantial primary school building programmes will be required to cope with this. Within the next five years in addition to the schools already listed in the present starts programme, primary projects will certainly be needed at Bodmin, Truro, St. Austell, Camborne/Redruth, and almost certainly at Helston, Newquay, Saltash, Torpoint and Liskeard.
These projects will merely deal with the increased population in those towns which will arise as the result of those now under 5 going to school. Therefore, this is a natural population increase and has nothing to do with overspill and expanded town programmes.
Bodmin—this is not my own constituency, but it affords an excellent example—has had something of a population explosion. In 1958, 60 children were born. In 1964, 134 children were

born. Bodmin will be a crisis point, unless something is done very quickly.
Turning briefly from primary to secondary schools, already there is severe overcrowding even in schools which have been built since the war. In Bude, which is in my constituency, the condition of the buildings is terrible. Huts have been placed alongside huts, and there is absolutely no further room on the site for expansion. We are to have a new satellite tracking station at Bude. I am very grateful for this. The labour required there alone will mean that by 1973 there will be 50 more children in the present Bude Grammar School.
At Helston, the Penrose Road premises are totally inadequate. Yet they, too, are scheduled to take another 75 children by 1971. Gwealhellis, built for 450 children, will have to take 650 by 1971. Bodmin Secondary Modern School, built for 450, will have to take 525 by 1972, not counting overspill. At St. Austell, the Penrice premises, which again were built to take 450, will have to take 600 by 1971. The same goes for Tolgus. At Treswithian, which was built to take 600, there will be 800 by 1971. In the Tor-point school for children between 11 and 16, by 1973 there will be 100 more children than it was ever intended to hold. Although the present situation at Truro can be held, there is no doubt that there will be substantial overcrowding difficulties by 1974.
All these facts together show that major projects are absolutely essential in Falmouth, Penryn, Bude and Helston. These have already been included in the programme which the County Council has put to the Department for 1969–70. In addition to these, there will be essential requirements for major projects in Bodmin, St. Austell, Camborne/Redruth and Torpoint within three years.
I turn to the comprehensivisation programme, which I wholeheartedly support. I have repeatedly urged the Government to move as fast as possible to its completion. However, it must be recognised that it adds an additional financial burden. There is an immediate necessity for new comprehensive schools at Bude and Helston merely to overcome the overcrowding problems in the present secondary schools there. At present, four of the 14 areas in the county are operating on a comprehensive basis. To bring


the other 10 areas into the comprehensivisation programme will cost at least another £5 million at current building prices. At the present rate of going, it will take 20 years to make the whole of the Cornwall education system comprehensive. There is very little opposition to comprehensivisation in Cornwall. There are some who have some certain reservations about it, but on the whole those who are responsible for making policy at County Hall are completely in accord with the idea.
I do not want to spend very much time on further education, except to say that the Department's letter of 11th June referred to an amount of £400,000, which included the St. Austell College of Further Education. Has this now been approved? It was originally approved for 1968–69 but then cancelled. My latest information is that the St. Austell part of it had not already been approved for 1969–70.
I want to quote some figures referring to the major projects for primary and secondary schools, taking no account of further education projects, for 1968–69 in the other counties in the South-West just to give some indication of the difference between Cornwall and these other counties. I give these figures to the nearest £1,000. Devon has had £353,000, Dorset, £250,000, Gloucestershire, £720,000, Somerset, £880,000 and Wiltshire, £630,000. Cornwall has had £23,260. It is hardly surprising that people in Cornwall feel that they have been left out in the cold. The Minister will have some difficulty in explaining away this catastrophic difference between the allocation for Cornwall and the allocations for these other counties.
I believe that we need a programme of at least £1 million a year for the next three years if the situation is not to reach total chaos in four, five or six years' time. I am not worried now about the immediate future. We can cope in the next two or three years. But I am convinced that, unless we are to reach crisis point in four, five or six years, the minimum programme must be £1 million a year of building allocation for the next three years.
The county council can cope with a programme of £1 million a year. The

architect's department and the construction industry are well able to do so. They coped with that kind of programme at the height of the rural schools reorganisation programme.
In conclusion, I pay a tribute—it is rare, perhaps, for me to do so—to County Hall in Cornwall. The administration of education in Cornwall is of an immensely high standard. The Department may be accustomed to receiving estimates of requirements from other counties sent in by people whose view is that they should put in at least three or four times what they really need. The secretary for education at County Hall in Truro is an honest man who puts in applications for only what he really requires. He is a first-class administrator and when he says that certain things are needed, he really means it, and the Department of Education should take note. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us real hope today for the £1 million building programme which is the absolute minimum required.

2.51 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): First, I express my regret that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is not in her place today, but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) understands, she is unwell. I am her inadequate substitute, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only will all he has said be clearly reproduced in HANSARD but it will be taken up in the Department, it will be studied by the Minister responsible for schools when, very shortly, she returns to duty, and it will be closely studied by everyone in the Department who is working in this field.
Whether the amount available to be spent on education be as much as or less than we should wish, it is necessary that each county should feel that it is receiving a fair allocation. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he considers that his county is not receiving a fair allocation. I have been assured that this is not so. In planning for the future, the first essential is that there should be a school place for every child—"Benches for bottoms".
The hon. Gentleman was wise to stress the future so much. There is an optimistic hope there, because, as he knows so much better than I do, there was until 1964 a diminishing school population, but since 1964, in the last four years, it has shown some rise, and it now appears that the rise will be accelerated. The hon. Gentleman stressed that point, and it is one very well known to my colleagues in the Department.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to note these figures. During the 10 years while the school population was static in Cornwall, it increased by over 700,000 in England and Wales. The figure for his own county between January, 1958 and January, 1968, showed an increase of 3,600 pupils. School places must be found for the increase which has already occurred.
In planning for the future in regard to Cornwall, as for every other county, the first priority to be taken into consideration is school places for all the children. I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman's mind somewhat at rest, realising that not only have he and his colleagues been doing forward thinking but the Department has been doing forward thinking and putting top priority on giving a place to every school child.
The conditioning framework for the allocation of resources was stated by the Prime Minister in January this year when he said:
Taking local authority expenditure as a whole, the Government expect that, in 1969–70, local authorities as a whole will restrain the level of their expenditure so that it does not in total exceed a figure in the region of 3 per cent. in real terms above what has already been agreed for purposes of the Exchequer contribution in 1968–69; and the Government will propose rate support grant for 1969–70 on this basis when the time comes. As regards 1968–69, the Government will expect local authorities to absorb any increases in cost which they cannot avoid by making savings elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, C. 1591.]
That all sounds rigorous. It is not what we would wish. But, to keep the picture in perspective, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more schools being built this year than in any past year. It would be wrong for any parent, teacher or other person interested in education to have the impression that there is a diminishing amount of building going on. It is increasing all the time,

though the graph of increase is not as great as the Government originally intended or desired, and it is not as great as any of us would wish.
We have many years behind us when, apparently, we were living in a country of "I'm all right, Jack" and "Never had it so good". The hon. Gentleman's problem, his county's problem and our problem would be easier if we were not having to make up such enormous past arrears of school building.
As I have said, the top priority is to find every child a place—to put it crudely, "Benches for bottoms" for all children. Naturally, therefore, priority attention is going at present to rapidly expanding industrial areas because the children must be got into school.
There is another priority. The Plowden Report made us all aware that children growing up in slums, from deprived homes, from deprived and congested areas without proper facilities, have a very big claim on our priorities. The Government accepted the Plowden Report. Therefore, within the limited resources available—I say again that, although limited, those resources are greater than in any past year and continue to move upwards—the second priority must be directed towards children in the slum back streets, those who do not have the benediction of the beautiful Cornish countryside or many of the other things which a child in a country area often has.
I realise that we are in two minds when we hear statements of that kind. I am myself a Member for a big county constituency, and this very weekend I shall be coping with precisely the same problem as the hon. Gentleman has raised, the problem of schools in some of our rural villages which are an absolute heartbreak and a disgrace. There will be no resting until we get rid of all those schools. But it is important to recognise that more is being done than in the past and that the Government are fully aware of the points which the hon. Gentleman has made.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the rate support grant is a general subsidy and that sometimes a special appeal is made to the county to give top priority to schools. But it is not Government


practice—it never has been and it never could be—to dictate to a county what its priorities should be within its rate support grant. The hon. Member may want to exert a little extra pressure, but, although I hope that we shall not have a campaign for home rule for Cornwall—we have had about enough of that kind of development—I think that he will agree that it is right to leave a certain measure of choice to the people who are handling the problem locally.
Although the position with secondary education is not quite so tough as in the village schools, Cornwall, like every other county, is faced with a very mixed situation, with some areas not so bad and some very bad indeed. It is easier to get on with comprehensive planning where there is a very rapid increase in population, because additional money must be given to bring the children into school places, and the Government insist that where that is done, it should be within a comprehensive plan.
We have every sympathy for the situation in Cornwall where there is a stagnant and, indeed, a diminishing population and it is good news—and I hope that the Government will get a little credit for this—that new industries are going into Cornwall, that there is an expansion of jobs and an expansion of population. If the natural logic of that is an expansion of the school population, Cornwall will be entitled to have all that taken into consideration when the general allocation of Government money is made.
I am informed that Cornwall had three main projects for further education and that all these proposals have been accepted, except that there is a three months' delay in starting in St. Austell. I hope that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will not feel too discouraged.
I need not labour the point, but we are in a situation in which we cannot do all we want to do, but it is worth noting

that while expenditure on roads has been cut by 81 per cent. and 10 per cent. and expenditure on housing, another most urgent need, by 2½ and 5 per cent. these have been cuts in the original intention and not cuts to less than we were spending before. The cuts in education expenditure are a 2 per cent. cut for 1968–69 and a 21½ per cent. cut for 1969–70. All that we regret, but the reductions are in a planned rate of growth and are not cuts below the existing level. Even after this measure of retrenchment, the increase in the next two years is expected to keep pace with the increase in the gross national product.
Looking ahead, the detailed discussions with the local authority associations of the rate support grant for 1969–70 and 1970–71 will begin shortly. I am not in a position to comfort the hon. Member by giving him exact figures, but these discussions will begin in an atmosphere of a lightening of the general economic situation, however modest it may be at this moment, and that will be reflected in everything which the Government are trying to do. It can be seen that such cuts as have been made—and we all regret them—are less in education than in many other Departments. We hope to see these cuts reversed very soon.
Although I have not been able to give all the aid and comfort to the hon. Gentleman which he would wish, I hope that he appreciates that Cornwall's problems are fully understood by the Department and I can assure him that everything he and his colleagues have said has been fully studied in the Department. Perhaps the next time he raises this matter he will be dealing with my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for schools who, as he knows, is a very great expert in all these matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Three o'clock.